There is something fundamental here, that I am constrained to explain by way of principle and acceptance, as I am not the funded scientist I was never born to be anyway. That's not to say my discoveries won't go down in the history books, I have at least two that I can say with a hundred percent certainty will be remembered or recorded for the rest of time. I don't deem you worthy, to share them with you, at this stage (you could easily discover them yourself if God were willing), but suffice it to say, I do at a minimum have a concept of the integrity needed to be meaningfully sustained by the people - I hope someone can say the same about you.
Now, for the purposes of this thread, I wish to explain something very simple: adaptations come from sets of genetic information, not from individual mutations.
First consider that the genetic string, is a combination of genetic codes. This means that the information is not just morse code. You cannot just hold on to some part of it, and alter it indefinitely over time, by refusing to let go. Make sense?
Second consider that the living organism, is differentiated among a number of working parts. Even the cell has a nuclei. This means that as an adaptive creature, new information (which doesn't come from mutations any way - thank you Creation science) for the creature has to be assembled from a number of sources. This can only be done if the information assembled, is consistent across its sources and assembled solely for the purpose of the integrity of the creature. Make sense?
Third consider that the redunancy of cells in a living organism, require new interpretation, from information copy to information copy, for each cell, which will integrate the information anew. This cannot happen, if there is dispute about which interpretation to base subsequent interpretations on - variations on a theme do not come from free choice of theme, once the variations have begun. This means that mutations, which cannot produce new information, nor develop consistency, are actually antagonistic to the ongoing definition of the organism and it's integrity, as has already been determined. Make sense?
Right, now consider these three steps and tell me that you can possibly attribute a radical state future to past alterations. You say "but they are all alterations!" You have not been listening. These steps are phases in the development of an organism that weed out the possibility of radicalisation. The imaginary expectation of radicalisation has already been identified scientifically as impossible (see Sign in to read: Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits - opinion - 03 February 2010 - New Scientist ) There is no miracle DNA.
There is no miracle DNA.
Thanks be to God for the strength, abilty and ingenuity to create this coherent, precise and accessible treatment of the illusion of radicalisation.
Now, for the purposes of this thread, I wish to explain something very simple: adaptations come from sets of genetic information, not from individual mutations.
First consider that the genetic string, is a combination of genetic codes. This means that the information is not just morse code. You cannot just hold on to some part of it, and alter it indefinitely over time, by refusing to let go. Make sense?
Second consider that the living organism, is differentiated among a number of working parts. Even the cell has a nuclei. This means that as an adaptive creature, new information (which doesn't come from mutations any way - thank you Creation science) for the creature has to be assembled from a number of sources. This can only be done if the information assembled, is consistent across its sources and assembled solely for the purpose of the integrity of the creature. Make sense?
Third consider that the redunancy of cells in a living organism, require new interpretation, from information copy to information copy, for each cell, which will integrate the information anew. This cannot happen, if there is dispute about which interpretation to base subsequent interpretations on - variations on a theme do not come from free choice of theme, once the variations have begun. This means that mutations, which cannot produce new information, nor develop consistency, are actually antagonistic to the ongoing definition of the organism and it's integrity, as has already been determined. Make sense?
Right, now consider these three steps and tell me that you can possibly attribute a radical state future to past alterations. You say "but they are all alterations!" You have not been listening. These steps are phases in the development of an organism that weed out the possibility of radicalisation. The imaginary expectation of radicalisation has already been identified scientifically as impossible (see Sign in to read: Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits - opinion - 03 February 2010 - New Scientist ) There is no miracle DNA.
There is no miracle DNA.
Thanks be to God for the strength, abilty and ingenuity to create this coherent, precise and accessible treatment of the illusion of radicalisation.