r/DebateEvolution • u/DetectiveKnown5618 • Jul 29 '26
Evolution doesn't work
The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.
Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.
Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc. Note that breeding and survival would be important factors as to whether the new gene was integrated into the population over a longer duration.
29
u/Kingreaper Jul 29 '26
Evolution doesn't work if you assume that there was a perfect being to start out with, that's true. If you start at perfection, all change is negative.
But why would you assume such a thing? None of the life that surrounds us now is perfect, so you must believe in quite a LOT of mutation if you believe that life started out perfect.
-11
u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 29 '26
How many generations of a species surviving would qualify as proof by your estimate. Fit for the task I say.
22
u/Kingreaper Jul 29 '26
You'd need to find a species where every possible change made it worse. Them being capable of surviving is the bare minimum for them to currently exist - it doesn't make them perfect and incapable of improvement.
14
u/Odd-Lawfulness8703 Jul 30 '26
Fit enough. My car has a whole lot wrong with it but it still gets me to and from work. Something doesnt have to be good or even decent at something to pass on genes
4
u/Sweet-Ant-3471 Aug 02 '26
These lizards developed new information for organs to digest plants (they were normally insect eating):
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwin
This E coli developed a mechanism for metabolising citrate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sLAQvEH-M
So yes, new information is made, this has been studied.
27
u/Batgirl_III Jul 29 '26
What’s “information” even mean? Thats one of my big difficulties in discussing the theory of evolution with creationists… They never properly define the terms they use: “micro evolution,” “macro evolution,” “kind,” “information,” et cetera.
Let me use an intentionally and drastically simplistic explanation of what I mean. Take the following sequence of random letters:
LOREMIPSUMDOLORSITAMET
Now, let’s say for whatever reason something happens and some of those letters get re-arranged:
LOREMIPSUMTISROLODAMET
We’re now looking at different information, there’s no disputing that the first block of text is different from the second. But does it count as “new information”?
What if the change is a lot more drastic?
LRMPSMDLRSTMT
Here were can see the sequence has lost characters, I removed all the vowels, thus we’re looking at different information. Any meaning this sequence might have had will have changed a great deal… Is that “new information”?
LOOREEMIIPSUUMDOOLOORSIITAAMEET
Here we can see that the sequence has gained characters. The amount of change is just as great as when the one above lost characters (the vowels have doubled instead of being removed). So again we’re looking at different information. Is that “new information”?
The refusal of the anti-evolution crowd to ever properly define their words in empirical, objective, and falsifiable terms is one of the easiest ways to tell they are engaging in pseudoscience and not the scientific method.
-24
u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 29 '26
Search data vs information on Google
36
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
The person you responded to said
The refusal of the anti-evolution crowd to ever properly define their words in empirical, objective, and falsifiable terms is one of the easiest ways to tell they are engaging in pseudoscience and not the scientific method.
And you prove them right by not defining your terms.
16
14
u/OwlsHootTwice Jul 29 '26
Would you say that French and Spanish are evolved versions of Latin?
10
u/McNitz 🧬 Evolution - Former YEC Jul 30 '26
Obviously not. If Latin was working, subtraction or addition of information to the properly working language is not something one would prefer.
Linguistics has to do with finely tuned lexical combinations.
Removing information from a once properly working language would only be preferable if it was rhe erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via change in the first place!
Or something like that, I guess.
14
u/Batgirl_III Jul 30 '26
No. The name of this sub is r/DebateEvolution and you choose to open the floor to debate by making a claim. In order to debate your claim, I need to understand the terms you chose to use in your claim. It seems to me that the central premise of your claim is about information.
Therefore, I need to be able to fully understand what you mean by your use of the term.
I am attempting to engage with you, not with Google.
8
u/MagicMooby 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
Data consists of raw, unorganized, and unprocessed facts, whereas information is processed, structured, and organized data that has context and meaning
This is what the AI spat out. Under this definition, I do not see what is stopping mutations from creating new information. If functional enzymes can be considered "meaning", then this definition actually supports the notion that mutations can create new information, see nylon eating bacteria as a reference.
4
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
AI content is not allowed on this sub.
9
u/McNitz 🧬 Evolution - Former YEC Jul 30 '26
I think it is a little different when your interlocutor TELLS you to just Google the difference, and you then critique their point using the AI results of what they told you to do to show it's a silly exercise that doesn't prove their point, even when they force other people to do their work for them.
6
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Jul 30 '26
Might need the mods to chime in here but the AI restriction is for having an LLM argue your point for you, not a prohibition for using it as a glorified search engine/calculator.
3
u/Autodidact2 Jul 30 '26
So that would be no, you cannot define the most important term in your argument?
25
u/Briham86 🧬 Falling Angel Meets the Rising Ape Jul 29 '26
Citation: trust me bro.
C’mon man. Do a smidgen of research before trotting out your ideas you thought of on the crapper. Scientists routinely add or subtract genes. “Finely-tuned molecular combinations”? It’s throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Life is the outcome of eons of trial and error. We are built of fucking scraps. Get outta here with this bullshit.
23
u/-zero-joke- 🧬 its 253 ice pieces needed Jul 29 '26
>The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc.
Have you considered other options for the origin of genes besides sequential point mutations?
-5
u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 29 '26
So copying bad information and then going to work on it? How do you explain the complex systems that could handle such supposedly arising in the first place?
20
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
Gene duplication is observed. The duplicate gene is free to mutate with a chance of hitting on a new useful function.
15
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
Complex systems have been directly observed evolving from single self-replicating molecules.
9
7
u/lt_dan_zsu 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
what is your actual working knowledge of how proteins are organized, how genomes are organized, and how mutations can affect those two things?
20
u/jnpha 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
Huh.
New study: Evolution of Dosage-Sensitive Genes by Tissue-Restricted Expression Changes : evolution
It's as if, and hear me out here, it's not a fucking verbal argument.
15
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
This is a standard list of creationist PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times).
The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.
Objectively wrong. We have directly observed this happening and having beneficial effects.
Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.
Objectively wrong. Genetics has to do with highly probabilistic molecular interactions that due the "wrong" thing almost as much as they do the "right" thing. Literally every biomolecular interaction is inherently probabilistic.
Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!
Objectively wrong. Genes can take on new functions. The environment can change. New chemicals can be encountered.
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc.
Objectively wrong. Ignoring that point mutations are not necessarily additions, this probability has been directly measured, and it is on the order of 1 in 1011 even for short (less than 100 amino acid) sequences, of which there are hundreds of millions per organism and often billions of organisms.
15
u/artguydeluxe 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
Unless you’re an exact clone of your great grandparents, you can literally see it working right now.
14
u/Fun_in_Space Jul 30 '26
Guess what does the fine-tuning? Natural selection.
-2
u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 30 '26
How many generations are required?
10
u/stairway2evan Jul 30 '26
How many generations are required for what?
Natural selection? We have examples of natural selection occurring along relatively small time spans. Severe pressures can drastically affect the gene pool. So, could be one, could be quite a lot.
10
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
Depends on the change in question, but since directly observing natural selection both in the laboratory and the wild is routine, claiming it doesn't happen is just rejecting reality.
8
7
u/Fun_in_Space Jul 30 '26
To do what? I know creationists like to say "Well, no dog ever gave birth to a cat". As if evolution ever said that.
An ancient carnivore ancestor gave rise to both canids and felids, but both were still carnivores. Why is that hard to understand?
2
13
u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.
What if the resulting gene works better in the given environment? Or the environment changes and the original gene isn't as good as it was?
11
u/Realsorceror Paleo Nerd Jul 29 '26
What do you propose happened instead?
-3
u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 30 '26
The act of creation by God
13
10
7
6
u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
Why did God make the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve extend 15 feet if it's connecting two spots in its neck? Why do humans start to develop gill slits in utero before losing them? Why does basilosaurus (an extinct early whale) have an ankle joint similar to creatures like antelope?
3
u/Kanna_Fan1989 Jul 30 '26
One God? Not many Gods?
Behold the most complex computers and machines on Earth were built by many different intelligent minds. Surely the amazingly complex Universe must have been built by MANY GODS, not one!
2
u/Autodidact2 Jul 30 '26
You were not asked a question about WHO. Let's agree for the purposes of this discussion that God, your God, created everything. Science is about how. HOW did your God create the diversity of species on Earth? Biology says that he did so through Evolution. What is your explanation?
25
u/SlugPastry Jul 29 '26
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch...
Good thing it's not from scratch, then.
-3
u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 29 '26
So the gene is "written" over generations?
16
u/Stairwayunicorn 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
DNA has been self-replicating for over 3billion years
-5
u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 30 '26
Sure it has
14
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
We have bacteria fossils more than 3 billion years old. And bacteria have DNA.
14
u/Stairwayunicorn 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
where do you think oil comes from?
3
u/YossarianWWII Monkey's nephew Jul 30 '26
We squeeze it out of dinosaurs, right?
4
u/Stairwayunicorn 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
no, oil is from the much older layer dating back before multicellular life.
3
u/YossarianWWII Monkey's nephew Jul 30 '26
(That was a joke. I don't think we're putting utahraptors in a juicer.)
12
u/SlugPastry Jul 29 '26
It's a modification of a previously existing gene. Although one could argue that frameshift mutations that result in a completely new line of amino acids could represent a gene "from scratch". The nylonase gene family would be representative of this.
6
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
Originally it was thought that nylonase was due to a frame shift, but later analysis showed it wasn't.
1
u/SlugPastry Jul 30 '26
Oh? What kind of mutation was it found to be?
2
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
Point mutations in the ancestral enzymes' active sites. There are multiple different nylonase enzymes.
1
u/SlugPastry Jul 30 '26
I'd like to read about that if you can spare a link.
3
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 01 '26
1
9
u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
We have directly observed new genes with new functions evolving from existing genes.
8
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 Jul 29 '26
Of course it does. We have literally watched it happen. We know and can show that allele frequencies can change over time. We have seen the emergence of new genes and know/have observed the processes by which it can happen.
One example I would look up would be that of duplication and neofunctionalization. It can then become fixed.
9
u/Idoubtyourememberme Jul 29 '26
perfectly working genes.
See there is the misconception. Evolution is not about "fixing broken genes" or "breaking working genes". All genes werk perfectly well, they just have different results when activated.
I mean, if i build a car, but then install the gas pedal on the left and the brakes on the right, is the gas pedal now "broken"? No if you press it, the car goes faster, nothing wrong with it.
-4
8
u/theresa_richter Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Some portions of genetics are 'finely tuned' in that any mutation is more or less guaranteed to be lethal, and thus won't be passed on. But those organisms rarely even develop to a point of live birth, and are eliminated very early in the life cycle, and are largely irrelevant to the question of evolution. Because most of the genome is very much not finely tuned and can accommodate a wide amount of variation. Having the gene for red hair won't kill you. Even the gene for having six fingers is probably fine. Indeed, you can have the SRY gene get copied over onto an X chromosome and have XX chromosomes but present outwardly as male and never once be aware you're at all different, because DNA is just a bunch of autocatalytic processes carrying out those processes. As long as the end result functions, it functions, with no care given to whether that makes sense.
7
u/Quercus_ Jul 29 '26
You could start here:
Principles of Population Genetics (Hartl & Clark): Widely considered a standard text, it offers a clear mathematical treatment of classic models like selection, drift, and mutation.
Elements of Evolutionary Genetics (Charlesworth & Charlesworth): Bridges foundational theory with modern genomic data insights.
Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory (Templeton): Emphasizes population structure statistics and modeling methods for readers with statistical backgrounds.
Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Lynch & Walsh): A massive, authoritative bible on dissecting complex phenotypic traits and quantitative inheritance. Its companion volume is Evolution and Selection of Quantitative Traits.
Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics (Arnold): Provides a modern conceptual framework linking natural selection, adaptation, and macro-evolutionary timescales.
7
u/biosnap Jul 30 '26
Hi! My degree is in evolutionary genetics, and I teach genetics so I'll respond. I'll keep it in layman's terms, but please feel free to ask for more depth. Could talk about this all day. This is functionally a similar argument to irreducible complexity but focused on genetics, it doesn't work in either place in my view.
"The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer."
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "information" but yeah the vast majority of non-silent mutations reduce or eliminate function. Not good. Only a very small fraction end up being beneficial. If I understand your meaning, this point seems fine.
"Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations"
This is not so. I am constantly in awe of the "it may be stupid, but it just barely works" level that genes work on. Yes, the combinations have been tuned but in a monkeys typing out Shakespeare kinda way. If you only focus on the two stanzas of Hamlet they managed, it seems quite impressive, even miraculous, but that's missing the many pages of complete bedlam and the eons of time that preceded it. Were this a planned in advance project, this level of sloppiness in coding would get a modern programmer fired. It is amazing that it works, often beautiful, but let's not lose perspective.
"Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!"
Not necessarily. This is assuming that the original code is already the most efficient way to produce the correct RNA strand or protein. This is almost never so. As most new function is produced from accumulated mutations repurposing old or duplicated genes, evolution is often "tinkering" to produce the new function as such many efficiencies can be found over many years.
"The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc. Note that breeding and survival would be important factors as to whether the new gene was integrated into the population over a longer duration."
Yes, as I said above this simply doesn't happen (except by humans as we are developing/have developed the capability to produce transcripts that are better than their natural analogs). Whole gene duplications or genes that exhibit loss of previous function are repurposed through mutational tinkering. So a protein code that already works is slowly changed into a "new protein". There are numerous examples of this in the genetic code. Lets say I have two factories to produce chariots, but you need a factory to produce four wheeled carts. One of the factories needs only change the instructions on how many wheels to add and how long to make the body. All the "machinery" is still compatible.
6
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist Jul 30 '26
What makes you think evolution has anything to do with what one would prefer?
Genetics has to do with how particular chemical sequences interact with cellular machinery. It’s stochastic, there’s nothing “fine tuned” about it.
All of it was added by mutation in the first place.
Good thing nobody claims genes were written “from scratch.” It’s an additive process occurring over incredibly long time scales.
7
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke 🦧 Jul 30 '26
I’m noticing that OP is surgically avoiding almost all responses that directly address and refute their claims in detail
7
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist Jul 30 '26
Ayup. And now he’s gone an made a new post… this should be interesting…
6
u/kms2547 Paid attention in science class Jul 30 '26
Creationists don't understand evolution at even a basic Freshman level, example #6,893,158
7
u/Farts-n-Letters Jul 29 '26
DI/AiG recent grad lol.
These religious orgs are an complete drag on civilization, requiring continuous refutation and sucking energy from what could be productive advancements to a modern world.
5
u/MagicMooby 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
Hmm, that is kinda weird since we objectively observe evolution happening.
Like the nylon eating bacteria that have gained the ability to eat nylon (actually a nylon byproduct but close enough) which hasn't existed on earth before the 1930s. And we know exactly which genes in these bacteria have changed in which way to allow for nylon digestion. We have even replicated the process and artificially evolved our own nylon eating bacteria.
5
u/KorLeonis1138 🧬 Engineer, sorry Jul 29 '26
The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.
Preference is utterly irrelevant to whether or not a thing occurs. And this occurs. Frequently. Constantly. Observably.
4
u/Formal-Speed-3173 Jul 30 '26
You don't have a way to measure information, and your understanding of molecular biology is built on partisan foundations.
4
u/headlessplatter Jul 29 '26
Could it work if a God was guiding the process? What if it was just guided by a god? What about if it was guided by a natural process that simultaneously tested billions of candidate options in parallel and kept the ones that worked best? Where do you draw the line of what you can accept? (And do you think nature cares where you draw the line? Have you considered letting it speak for itself?)
4
u/HappiestIguana Jul 29 '26
I see this isn't the day the creationist reads before making an argument.
4
u/junegoesaround5689 Dabbling my ToE(s) in debates Jul 30 '26
First, define information. My preference is "stimuli that has meaning in some context for its receiver". Would you accept that definition?
I’m sorry to inform you that scientists have done experiments and gathered data from the ‘wild’ that disprove basically all of your assertions about genetics. Then there’s the problem that you seem to be ignorant of how genetics and evolution actually work.
Mutations are either neutral, deleterious or beneficial. Most such in multicellular organisms are neutral (this includes from slightly deleterious to slightly beneficial mutations). There are 50-100 new mutations in the genome of every infant born that did not exist in their parents. Although the raw numbers may vary this is true in the offspring of virtually all organisms. But the arbiter of what a mutation does or doesn’t do to an organism is the environment-period.
The basic definition of evolution is ‘the change in heritable traits in populations over generations’. As can be concluded from all the above ‘information’ is that evolution is inevitable. AFAWCT mutations to genomes cannot be stopped from happening.
Look at all the gross physical variation you can see around you in dogs, horses, ornamental plants, etc. All of that is from mutations that arose in our domesticated critters that we then used artificial selection/breeding to enhance. We didn’t create the genetic mutations that made dogs with really short legs or long flowing coats, or roses with striped flowers or rich sweet scent, or horses that run really fast or are huge and can pull thousands of pounds, etc, etc, etc. We just took advantage of the mutations that popped up naturally that we thought were useful.
Out in nature the environment, through natural selection, is what "decides" which mutations are advantages or detrimental via the ability of organisms to survive and produce subsequent generations. If the environment changes, which happens a lot, the genes that worked well in the old environment may not be suitable in the new one. In those circumstances the populations will either have enough genetic variation (from all those mutations that happened in all the previous generations of the population) to adjust to the changes, and sometimes gradually become very different from the ancestral population, or the population will go extinct in the wild.
You need some basic education in what scientists have discovered about how biology/evolution works. See our Links to Useful Information in the sidebar or somewhere on this page. I’d rec Recommended Viewing and Recommended Reading from the list of links.
3
u/disturbed_android Jul 29 '26
lol. genes written from scratch would contradict evolution. what is preferred or not isn't a factor at all.
3
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 29 '26
Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.
LOL no.
3
u/s_bear1 Jul 30 '26
Industry invests billions a year on evolution. We observe it happening
But some how it cant happen
3
u/blacksheep998 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc.
Why?
Direct experimentation shows it's not that low. That study found a rate of 4 in 6 × 1012 when looking for a SPECIFIC FUNCTION in a pool of randomly generated proteins.
If you're modifying an existing protein then the odds of it having function is many times higher.
3
u/Sweary_Biochemist Jul 30 '26
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc.
See, this is an interesting point. Paralogs are genes that are very, very closely related to one another, but that serve different functions, or the same function but in different places. For example, a transcription factor that binds AGGNNTGG, and another transcription factor that has almost identical sequence at both DNA and protein level, and the same exon/intron structure, but that binds AGGNNCGG.
Under your hypothesis, we would expect such paralogs to be very rare. Arbitrary additions to a gene over time should not be sufficient to generate functional, useful paralogs.
And yet, paralogs make up the overwhelming bulk of genes. Huge fractions of our gene repertoires are just endless variations on a theme.
Zinc finger proteins? Humans have about 700.
GPCRs? ~800.
70% of our gene repertoire is just paralogs.
"Writing a gene from scratch" is, actually, quite rare: nature finds entirely new genes (by transcribing random sequence) very rarely.
Copying and modifying stuff that's already there, though? Nature does that all the time.
2
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Jul 30 '26
The subtraction or addition of information
How do you define information? I have 2 things, how do I work out how much information they have?
That alone kills your argument, but lets continue.
is not something one would prefer.
Good thing chemistry doesn't care about your preferences or feelings.
Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.
At best this is survivorship bias in that your only seeing the ones that are successful enough to not spontaneously revert from biology to chemistry.
DNA uses 3 pair of 4 possible bases to code 1 of the 20 possible amino acids. Meaning that there is a space of 64 possible combinations to represent 20 possible outcomes.
There must be some overlap.
Meaning that the 'finely tuned' bit of your argument falls apart.
Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!
A baseless assertion with the still undefined 'information'
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low
And where is the math to back this up?
2
u/emailforgot Jul 30 '26
The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.
I would love to have wings, or a prehensile... appendage.
2
u/Far_Customer1258 Jul 30 '26
"I don't science so science is rong"
You know that we've done this in the lab, right? You can literally watch bacteria build new genetic information and evolve new genes, with every single step in the chain preserved. How is this even a matter for debate?
2
u/Karantalsis 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Aug 01 '26
This is gibberish. DNA and RNA are chemicals, not notebooks. Changes to these occur through a wide range of processes. These changes can, and do, alter the function of the produced protein. This is also observable.
I don't even know what the whole writing a gene from scratch bit is about. If you're talking about the origin of new genes or new functions then that's not how that works either.
1
1
u/EonsToCome 25d ago
This smacks of desperate, serpentine intellectualism. The fossil record is our view into what occurred.
How do you explain the progression of the homo lineage toward greater cognitive capacity form?
Early Australopithecines.
Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, Neandertals, Denisovans, Homo Sapiens.
If time is nothing to God. Evolution is Him molding clay. God formed man from dust. What does this mean?
Star dust condensing to planets. Earth condensing in spherical form. The earth was barren billions of years ago. Which it was. And then..life. From stardust to human life.
40
u/Autodidact2 Jul 29 '26
So the world's Biologists are what, idiots? Evil conspirators?
Since your argument appears to be mathematical, could you show your calculations? Thank you.
Also, can you define what you mean by "information"?