One problem I find with all theories on the concept of how evolution occurs. None of them seem to address how death evolved. Death does not seem to be a very healthy attribute for an organism to have.
If life is the result of random chance, so must death be.
Going a step further why is their death? Unless a dead organism has been physically destroyed, is it not the same material it was while it was alive?
So let us say that all of this events occur by chance. That can explain how we can end up with a 2 legged 6 foot tall lump of matter called man. But, the question is why is it alive?
The question I want answered is not how evolution can explain the existence of a pile of matter that looks like an Elephant, but rather why is the elephant alive.
I'd have to agree with you, on that observation... but I have much more serious problems with the theory of evolution from a cellular level-- It makes no sense.. unless you keep it in the realms of science fiction or under very strict general topics.
for instance when someone states
Correct mutation is the foundation for change. Without change everything would be the same. And although that the majority of mutations are destructive the fact that they are destructive means that they wont be passed on into the population. Those few positive mutations will be passed on.".
You'll notice a term like "mutation is the foundation of change".. well change into what? a change into a diseased state.. a change into spontaneous abortion, a change into not working as well, or no change at all. is in fact what has been observed from any mutation known to man. We have very much advanced in the field of molecular biology, that any number of possibilities are documented, through mode of action, pathophysiology and outcome-- further very destructive genes can and are being passed down to generations. To put it in very simple terms--Many genes normally contain a trinucleotide repeat which is present several times. When the number of trinucleotide repeats increases to a larger than normal number of copies, the DNA is altered, and the gene may not function properly, or may not work at all.
{{{Sometimes, a person may have more than the usual number of copies, but not enough to alter the function of the gene. These individuals are referred to as "premutation carriers." When they pass on these extra copies to a child, however, the extra trinucleotide repeats cause the DNA to become unstable, and the area of DNA expands even more. The result is that the child has a gene that no longer functions, or is not functioning properly and they are said to have the "full mutation." An example of a trinucleotide repeat disease is Fragile-X syndrome. }}}
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_genetics/trinucleo.cfm
You can imagine due to the X linked inheritance of this, that it will and in fact is passed down for generations, the females are carriers and in turn this syndrome is present only in boys. I don't wish to get into what sort of genes get methylated or become non functional ( It is a very expansive topic) however, every generation thereof has more of these trinucleotide repeats.. they don't wipe themselves out, and they certainly don't become another specie... what happens is the degree of mental retardation becomes more severe with every generation... Same thing with Huntington's disease, except in that trinucleotide repeat, the person dies earlier and earlier with each successive generation... Some of the older members of this forums who may have listened to country songs may remember someone named 'Woody' Guthrie' who in fact died of this early on, and people were afraid the lethal genes were passed on to his kid-- another country singer whose name I can't remember at the moment, but he was spared... undoubtedly due to the autosomal dominant nature of the disease he is a carrier, and a strong chance he has passed the lethal genes to one of his off spring...the result of this will be early death, but they will not be wipe themselves out--- I don't wish to go further into what it means to have a germline mutation.. because this can be an all day lecture, frankly I don't have that kind of time.. but if I am to stand firm on a point (evolution) in this case, I'd really have to cover all grounds, not just pass generalizations and random statements of mutations or glowing pigs...
we already use porcine valves in humans, along with immunosuppressive therapy-- more often than not, I am lost and confused about the point the evolutionists are trying to make... putting a (phylum) or a (kingdom) in a topic doesn't loan it credence or qualify it as a heading for evolution. under Class Mammalia you'll find everything from Armadillos, to whales to humans.. I am very confused as to how or why that would qualify us as having evolved from such creatures, as opposed to simply having similarities with them? Further what is the name of this amazing mutation that would cause such a radical change?
Evolution becomes very flawed when it comes down to very specific detail... life is very detailed. Every cell has multitudes of functions and run like clock works... I am not trying to make a case for G-D, to be honest, it doesn't matter to me on the long run who believes in what, I much rather worry about my own pursuits, however, Darwin by today's standards is no scholar.. What he was is a cultist and started a cult of loyal fans, under the guise of science-- who go into extremes, albeit extremes in generality to prove his points. But they are really not holding up when put to the test.
my two cents
