Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Shocking Discovery Flies in the Face of Neo-Darwinian Tradition

Recommended Posts

On 6/6/2018 at 5:05 AM, Mordecai said:

Well, right, they wouldn't have "intermarried." I just think of marriage, when I think of babies, being Mormon. lol All of that said, the DNA that kangaroos and humans have in common is enormous and _exactly_ the same. Well beyond what anyone would predict; no rational person could predict from Darwin's theory, that we would see enormous amounts of _identical_ DNA in kangaroos and humans, looking at the fossil record.

Let me suggest a concept here, although admitting that I am unqualified to have an opinion  on this subject.

I suggest that DNA is subject to the laws of chaos/ fractals which may explain similarities in DNA code rather than common ancestry.  Just another of my 
"out of the box" ideas.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post

Link to post
On 6/7/2018 at 8:46 PM, The Nehor said:

Wrong. It is much easier for a genetic abnormality (that may have already existed) to sweep over a small population than a large one....especially in a catastrophic situation where that abnormality has survival value.

Obviously it's easier if you have the mutation already. You missed my point. The question is, where did you get the mutation. Are you telling me that huge populations produce that one magic mutation and then, by completely implausible chance, that one mutation gets isolated? Think about the problem. Even with a large population, the chances of a useful mutation occurring is astronomically small. Then, you need yet another astronomically small chance of that creature getting isolated with a small breeding population, which still doesn't guarantee the mutation gets passed on and, especially since inbreeding tends to reduce fitness, increases the likelihood of extinction, adding to the higher risk of extinction caused merely by having a small population. I mean, the odds of that are astronomically small as well. So you need two miracles, basically, for this to work. I know a lot of biologists argue for this, but that is because they have nothing else. They're being ridiculous, from a mathematical standpoint. But who needs math, when you have ideology?

Edited by Mordecai
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.