DarkwolfX37

Myriad Reality

Extra said
Hi Dark!!

Hiya.

Myriad Reality

whizzball1 said
? Didn't stop me from crying while I wrote Soren dying xD

Ahaha. Ahahahaha. Ahahahahahahaha. Ahahaha. Haha. Ha.

Myriad Reality

Etcetera said
When it comes to gene creation, before any viruses existed, it was closed.

You... you realize that viruses were most likely the first pseudo life there was.... right? They're most likely the reason life exists at all.

Myriad Reality

Etcetera said
That's what I'm saying. Any mutation that seems to create "new" information is just an activation of existing information. For example, scientists induced a mutation in a bacteria that allowed it to live on citrus. But the information was already there, in an existing gene, but in a sort of "off" position.

You keep implying that things that aren't closed systems are.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask358

Myriad Reality

whizzball1 said
Life cannot come from non-life. It is a scientific law which has never been disproved. All experiments trying to show that life could have come from non-life, first of all, came up with left-handed and right-handed amino acids, while it's only one type to make proteins. Besides that, if life were to somehow form when lightning struck and created uncountable amino acids that formed into uncountable proteins that all just formed together to make a cell, the leftover amino acids would be poisonous to the organism. Besides that, the environment it was in would also be poisonous to the new organism, for certain atmospheric reasons. Even worse, the experiments were specifically fixed to create these amino acids, and the environment fixed was different from the environment according to the theory.Cambrian Explosion: Before the Cambrian explosion, we only see rare scattered marine organisms throughout the fossil record. Suddenly, in the layers of the Cambrian Explosion, we get an explosion of new, complex life, in a far evolutionary stage from what we see before the explosion. As it seems, evolution had a sudden growth spurt during this short period. After the Cambrian Explosion, we go back to rare fossils that don't seem to show an evolutionary process. The Cambrian Explosion could be far better explained by a worldwide flood mass-killing sea, air, and land creatures, burying them in sediments quickly with the rushing water and then fossilising them just as quickly.

Life comes from non life literally every day.
Cambrian explosion: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIB1cCambrian.shtml
What you're doing is literally the exact same as throwing out most of the pieces of a puzzle, putting the rest into place, and then claiming that the puzzle can't possibly form what it says it does on the box because by looking at these pieces, it's not possible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events
Your flood is not only impossible, but is irrelevant.

whizzball1 said
An article I read in accompaniment with one lecture had this analogy:Imagine 18 people standing in line. The amount of possible combinations for them to be arranged is 18! (18 factorial), which is 6402373705728000 (6.4 quadrillion). If the people switched to a different combination every minute, it would take them 12.18 billion years to try them all. Now, there are 18 amino acids that form one of the basic proteins. If it takes 12.18 billion years to try the combinations, one per , then how much more to make all the other proteins and arrange them into the right shapes for all the different parts of a cell?

That implies a false scenario. In order for that statement to be correct, there would have to be one set of 18 in existence, rather than the countless individual ones that would form a more accurate scenario.

Myriad Reality

whizzball1 said
I've actually been listening to lectures on the things I just said in that post. :P

Then the people you're listening to are idiots.
Life from non life is a given fact. There is nothing that comes from itself. Ever. Not only that, but that's abiogenesis, which is completely separate from evolution.
The things created in that environment are the fundamentals of life, not necessarily a living thing. Even so, what would come to be in that environment would be able to survive there. It's not like a human just sprung out of the ground in a primordial earth.
You statement on the Cambrian explosion is entirely false. It was not "most evolution" that happened then, nor has it "slowed down" afterwords.

Myriad Reality

I just realized that it's much more fun to read serious comments in Hideyoshi's voice than my usual reading voice.

Myriad Reality

Etcetera said
And the fact that mutations can't create new genes, only modify existing ones. But OSelfish is a logic puzzle.

*Sigh* I'm beating you over the head with a science book if I end up going to texas at some point.

Myriad Reality

whizzball1 said
Well, at first glance, if you don't see all the glaring problems with it, like life from non-life, the fact that life couldn't survive in the environment it had to be created in, the fact that nearly all evolution happened within the short period of the Cambrian Explosion and that it slowed down for the next few hundred million years, and a million other problems, then it "makes sense".

Literally every word of that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Myriad Reality

Heroic said
Everything must change, I won't argue with that statement. That does not mean that everything has to constantly be changing. I have the power in me to choose if I want to change or not. People have tendencies to subconsciously start changing, but just as enough will to change can make a person change, enough will to not change will make a person stay the same.

I hate to play this card, but you'll figure it out someday. I just hope you can avoid all the pitfalls along the way.