Well, DNA in this case. I don't understand, do you mean that Down's syndrome is more likely than being born without arms? Or less likely? Or something else? Oh, I agree, it is the same information. However, there is more of it, that's my point. If a person has a chromosome disorder which gives them an extra chromosome, the DNA in that chromosome might then mutate and evolve into something useful (on a scale of many generations, of course). If that chromosome after those generations is different to the original chromosome, then you will have an individual with more DNA information than the individuals at the beginning of this example. Of course, I don't propose that this is exactly the way it happened, I'm merely making the point that the limited information in one individual does not make it impossible for future organisms to have more information, ie. the fact that the first beings must have been extremely simple does not mean that more complex beings such as ourselves are impossible today. True, but biology is not universal, it is local. By eating and thus obtaining energy and losing entropy, we can do things that seem to fly in the face of the laws of thermodynamics (at least if you don't understand them). What do you mean "so what"? You asked about when things come into existence, I gave you some examples of things coming into existence. It seems to me you have misunderstood me. What does that have to do with anything? What we are? Alive. That's all we can say from that information. My point is that as long as us humans are not closed systems (and we are not), your objection that life violates the laws of thermodynamics. How so?
Proteins do a lot of stuff, you're going to have to be more specific. Don't get me wrong, I don't think your arguments are good, I just think your English is too poor for people to understand them.
Learn German and you will also not understand. Glücklich, die wissen Glücklich, die wissen, daß hinter allen Sprachen das Unsägliche steht; daß, von dort her, ins Wohlgefallen Größe zu uns übergeht! Unabhängig von diesen Brücken die wir mit Verschiedenem baun: so daß wir immer, aus jedem Entzücken in ein heiter Gemeinsames schaun. Rainer Maria Rilke
Not necessarily. If I had at my disposal the Mona Lisa and Leonardo da Vinci, and you were invested in the idea the former was not the creation of the latter, you could demand proof that the painting wasn't a forgery, proof that the experts I called in to verify it weren't lying, proof that it was really da Vinci and so on... ...because the one thing as equally inviolable as the will of the Creator is the will of the egomaniac to reject anything that threatens his delusory sense of self worth. You give them way too much credit. To know that, they'd have to know what life is in the first place - and they don't. If they did, they'd sure as hell know what it ain't; and there isn't even universal consensus as to whether viruses constitute a life form. He didn't. His original creation was corrupted, so that Adam and Eve became hybrid creatures, and passed that mixed heritage on to their descendants. Think of a child who grows up with good parents, then gets tangled up with the wrong crowd as a teenager - the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, but now that teenager is, at least in part, the fruit of a tree other than his parents.
You need to go back a step. I am not concerned with who the creator is, that would be an absurd question if you have not even established something was created.
My point is that for life to evolve into complexity, we need to have DNA and it needs to be meaningful/useful. Downs syndrome is an example of the amount of DNA increasing, mutations and natural selection is responsible for making it meaningful/useful.
No one knows how DNA itself evolved. Down syndrome is an example that things are going wrong. Some people who suffer trisomy 21 are by the way able to study in a university, while others are not able to learn to read and write. Nevertheless it will exist in the future of mankind no children with a trisomy 21 any longer, because nearly all this babies get aborted. Bullshit. What you say here is bullshit. Trisomy 8, X, 13, 16, 18 and 21 are problems. Human beings with another trisomy are in most cases not able to survive at all (except in case of sex-chromosomes). A trisomy has nothing to do with a growth of the number of chromosomes. It is a defect. A human being has 46 chromosomes, A Gorilla or Orang Utan has 48 chromosomes. A dog 78 chromosomes. A carp 104, a mouse 40, a tomato 24. And so on. Here a list from 1-1260 Chromosomes: http://www.gerdlamprecht.de/ChromosomenAnzahl.htm
I haven't said that trisomy isn't a problem, I'm just saying that it disproves the idea that the amount of DNA cannot increase from one generation to the next. Obviously, humans have not undergone that particular change (if it had, all humans would have 47 chromosomes, and that's not the case).
So what? Have the children of people with a trisomy 21 also a trisomy 21? One of your problems is you do not know this. Another problem is you do not ask yourself this question. Good grief. So why do you say all this nonsense? What has it to do with anything? A tomato has 24 chromosomes - a gorilla has 48 chromosomes. Means this 2 tomatoes are a gorilla or tomatoes are able to have a trisomy 21?
Not really. Doesn't matter, the psychology underlying the investment in one lie or another is identical. It was established before the first man drew breath, by the act of creation.
Using the term "Proof" - unless someone is claiming proof to the contrary - is silly in a conversation about how life arose. (I am referring to the post to which you are responding). There is plenty of evidence for evolution. I do not think this could ever reach the bar of "Proof" as even if we could prove that it was possible for life to have arisen via evolution ... this does not mean that an outside force did not do it. In fact, evolution itself is driven by outside forces.
Keeps the problem that creation and evolution are totally different things, so the discussion "evolution vs creation" (="science vs religion") is one of the most stupid discussions I've ever have seen.
By what? What do you understand under "outside" and "force" in context with the theory of evolution? "Evolution" is nothing else than the cultivation of plants and animals. Only for the people today, who are living in cities, this is a kind of secret - in former times everyone knew how to do this. That's not a mystery. The theory of evolution found out that nature per se follows the same rules as we are using for the cultivation of plants and animals. The difference: nature makes no plans.
The claim that "evolution" is nothing but the cultivation of plants and animals - is patent nonsense. Evolution is caused by genetic mutation of DNA. Mutations that result in a species being better adapted to the environment results in a better survival rate for entities that have this mutation. This was going on long before cultivation of plants and animals.
What we don’t know does not equal a god. You can no more explain how this god has no origin if he even exists. When you can provide verifiable evidence for this creator, come let us see it. All you have now is wishful thinking.
Life is the result of information. Our DNA contains programs that tell our cells what to do and when to do it. Think of it as a computer program, because that is exactly what it is. A set of instructions that are read and acted upon. Now, back to your claim that mutations are responsible for evolution. Try making random changes to your computers operating system and let me know if it makes your computer run better. Oh, you might want to back up your system before you do it.
