Reply to Comment

said:

OK, I appreciate fiction but

OK, I appreciate fiction but to claim this as "evolutionary science" takes more faith than any religion I know of. I'd hate to be the only one to see the flaws in this system. Technically to "decode evolution", at least MACRO-evolution (what most people consider "real" evolution)would be impossible in this system. You see, for a "rat like" animal to evolve into an elephant/whale/human the information within it's DNA (which would have BILLIONS of base pairs LESS than an elephant today) would be insufficient. It would require the DNA to have that infornmation ADDED to it somehow. Natural selection only chooses which pairs to keep based on the combined DNA of both parents. If that DNA didn't already exist then the offspring aren't going to simply CREATE it's own extra DNA. 100 million base pairs cannot mysteriously grow to 1 billion/2 billion/10 billion. That's called the "information theory". You have to start with the same amount or less information than you ended with. Which is why MICRO-evolution is possible. That is the changes that take place within an existing animal species. MICRO is the only evolution that is and ever will be observed. Because, it's the only kind that exist. This model would be GREAT for tracing MIRCO-evolution. What they don't tell you in this article is that when he tested it out simulating the evolution "like nature" they ended with the same amount of base pairs as they began with. Which doesn't turn a rat into a professor. I'm sorry to turn this into a science lesson, but it's this pseudo-science that been decieving people since the days of darwin. They make "fact" out of faith. And poor faith as it is.