1.6% of the North American population says that the universality of the genetic code is strong evidence for the theory of evolution.
It is not.
In fact the universality of the genetic code is a much stronger evidence for a common Creator.
The theory of evolution does not predict the genetic code to be universal. On evolution one might more likely expect multiple lines of codes in nature. Several biologists state that life probably arose spontaneously from non life in numerous places around the globe “at the same time.”
After all, it had to happen in some universe. We’re just really lucky that it happened to be ours.
This is what these people are like. It’s how they think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Creationists, because of their lack of knowledge regarding biology, claim that biologists are wrong when they say that ' the genetic code is strong evidence for the theory of evolution'.
ReplyDeleteThat is a lie. Biologists do not say that.
Creationists, on the other hand, DO claim that
"In fact the universality of the genetic code is a much stronger evidence for a common Creator."
The use of the words 'much stronger evidence' show the bias in their thinking process. They think that by attacking strawmen arguments and building false dichotomies, they are supporting their hypothesis.
The fact that the genetic code is not perfectly universal is pointless; God could work in mysterious ways...
The fact that what we call 'life' is, at the biological level, nothing more but well-understood chemical/biological processes is pointless; some Antiquity men said otherwise.
The fact that the Theory of evolution completely destroys the idea of original and man's special place in the tree of life is pointless; Creator God can simply be pushed back farther in history and fill other gaps.
This is what these people are like. It’s how they think.
The first organism on scene lived in a world full of available food. It doesn't take too long to cover the oceans when you're the only one around, sucking up all of the food to make more copies of you. At this point, the copies were rather sloppy, but, yeah, it would be hard for life to arise another time after someone else had come along and eaten up everything at the picnic.
ReplyDeleteLife might have arisen more than once, only to die off completely by accident. However, after it "took off" the first time, the field would change quite a bit. You'd be competing against relatives, rather than whole new branches of life.
First mover advantage.
ReplyDelete(What anon said.)
ReplyDelete