Thought I would give ai a shot, so used Bard and asked one simple question. Wording and specifications are important. So, how does one go from primordial ooze to human without adding genetic material? Seems like a fair questiin since we're all supposedly here thru happenstance. Conversation follows.
What observable process adds genetic information to an existing mammals genes? No theoretics please, only replicate and observable facts.
expand_moreedit
View other drafts
volume_up
Currently, there are no known observable processes that directly add genetic information to an existing mammal's germline DNA (the DNA that is passed on to offspring) in a way that is replicable and verifiable.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
So spit some observable facts good sir. And let's not equate natural selection with evolution.
oh boy. sure lets break down some very basic stuff.
genetic variation occurs within a single generation. your kids will be similar to you, but have the potential to be different in many ways.
these variations compound on each other, and lead to more significant changes over more generations.
that is the natural process of evolution, by which the DNA of a species can change over time.
natural selection determines which genetic variations are able to be passed on to the next generation.
next up, the earth is actually round...
Ah yes, "Time." The magic wand of Darwinian evolutionary processes.
By definition, never observed.
"Add in deep time and anything is possible," the Darwinian evolutionist proclaims. Time, however, does not have creative powers. In fact, Time is more destructive and deleterious on genetic information than beneficial, and this is observable and verifiable.
Macroevolution - change on the grand scale from one species to another - is never observed. The fossil record doesn't support it (which Darwin acknowledged).
In fact, the fossil record screams long periods of stasis with short burst of new, complex life appearing on the scene (see Pre-Cambrian Explosion), and then long periods of stasis again. This resembles special creation so much so that Stephen J Gould (Darwin's successor) had to posit the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in order to save the Atheistic paradigm of Darwinian thought.
It's a joke.
as I said, human beings are not a natural development. the fossil record could not possibly be complete.
but no, the existence of time does not negate natural law. you may as well argue whether gravity is a law of physics or just God's will.
These issues are weaponized so that people misunderstand how the laws of nature are subject to the laws of God. they are not mutually exclusive, they are different aspects of the same design.
Sounds like you're favoring some sort of Theistic Evolution. Do I understand you correctly?