Study the changes the immune system will allow before it attacks. a perfect example of this is a immune system disease that many people are familiar with. And that is arthritis. It's where the immune system attacks the cartilage in your joints. making them swell, inflame and damage. Is not the cartilage the same DNA as the rest of the Body? How much different would the cartilage have to be for the immune system to even notice? So the point is not the 98% of the DNA that the same, but the amount it takes in difference that the immune system will react to, that in the case of arthritis, cripples and damages.
If our immune system was not as sensitive as it is, we would all be sickly and our life expectancy would be half of what it is. Example: Our bodies fight and kill cancer cells everyday. Cancer is not that much different from noncancerous cells. So if the immune system is even slightly off to fight such a small change, we die. Understand? What this calculates to is not 5 or 10 steps between chimps and humans, but millions. Millions of missing links and a million times more time required to allow it to happen.
This is why you won't see sites on how evolution worked around the immune system. If you type in immune system and evolution, all you will find are sites trying to explain how the immune system evolved, not how evolution evolved working with the immune system.
Difference is a measurement of change, right? So since you don't seem to get it I will ask a question that more points to what I'm looking for. How much can change can there be before the immune system will react? All the change you desire, or is there a point to how much change can happen all at once?
You have some misunderstandings about how the immune system works. First of all, not all mutations will lead to the production of an entirely new protein. In many cases, the mutation will alter the distribution or amount of a pre-existing protein. For example, the keratin proteins can form hooves, scales, feathers, hair, horns, and claws. These are very different structures, but they use the same structural protein. Secondly, not all protein changes are going to trigger an immune response. The immune system responds to proteins called antigens, and these antigens are what doctors look for when they determine whether someone is a match for organ donation. If our body was that sensitive to foreign proteins, we would be allergic to nearly every food we ingested. Furthermore, human heart valves are commonly repaired with cow or pig tissue. The genetic difference between humans and cows is even greater than 2%, yet the immune system does not attack the foreign tissue. The immune system is not a security alarm which will suddenly go off after a certain threshold is reached; itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very sensitive to certain changes, but not to others. And I will again stress the point that a heritable mutation must occur in the sperm or egg cells, which means it will be present in the individual from the moment of conception onwards. WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not talking about spontaneous mutations occurring in the tissue of adults. I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t studied immune system development, but I suspect that an embryo has a much greater degree of immune flexibility than an adult. If the immune system was pre-programmed to Ã¢â‚¬Å“knowÃ¢â‚¬Â what foreign tissue looks like, there would be a big problem is the baby inherited momÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s antigens and dadÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s immune system, unless mom and dad are genetically identical. Obviously thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a huge over simplification of how inheritance works, but you see my point
Keep in mind that there would be stages in between laying eggs and placental mammals. Stages where immune suppression may not be essential to survival, but could be still highly advantageous in some cases. Evolution is about gradual change, not huge leaps.
How would such a ability evolve? If the the hormone was not there to secrete when the first evolving species appeared on the sin with their first pregnancy, the offspring dies species becomes extinct.
And about the different blood type. Same thing. If the protection between mother and child were not in place for the child to have a different blood type, they both can die. Species goes extinct.
Your questions seem to be based on the misconception that evolution aims for pre-defined goals. My guess is blood types came about by random, harmless mutation. Neutral mutations, which neither help nor hinder survival, will often persist in the population at a relatively stable frequency. However, there are some theories out there about possible advantages to the various blood types, like resistance to certain diseases. If thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the case, blood types could provide an evolutionary advantage.
Why even evolve the ability to have different blood types in the first place? What was it required to evolve this in order to survive? This is not even explainable by the evolution process because it does not fit "any" of the evolution mechanisms required for such a change to be warranted.
Hmmm... I see a layer below trilobites, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you? It has very few fossils which is consistent with what I said about soft-bodied animals. The Cambrian layer is also a very large layer by the looks of it, and the picture doesn't indicate how high up in the layer animals like trilobites were found.
I would hardly say the fossil record is the Ã¢â‚¬Å“holy grailÃ¢â‚¬Â of evolution. I was convinced of evolution while studying biology, not fossils. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not that fossils are inaccurate, but as I already explained the process of fossilization is such a rare event that weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not guaranteed to find fossils of every living thing that ever existed.
If science is going to refer to the fossil record as a "record", then it has to be somewhat accurate. If not then the holy grail of evolution is mere speculation. You cannot on one hand claim a record, and while on the other hand when the record does not support what you want it to, make excuses.
Rocks and stars are both made up of matter. But when a rock is melted, it releases argon gas and the clock is re-set at zero. So my point is that with these dating methods, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not measuring the formation of the matter itself but the formation of the specific rock, bone, etc. To answer your original question, all matter does not date the same because weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not measuring the formation of the actual atoms composing these compounds.
Right. Is not matter... matter whether in it's liquid form or not? How do you classify molten rock, non-matter? What is the makeup of the sun considered, non-matter?
God is a lawmaker, He is not a lawbreaker. So in order to make a 6,000 year old creation work under the current laws of physics, He would have to create with age. Example: If you had the ability to create a small universe inside a room. And while you could do anything, you could not break the laws that you made your creation work under. How would you have to create?
According to the Bible, God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care much for the laws of physics:
Jesus walks on water, which breaks the laws of density, weight, and buoyancy.
God parts the Red Sea, breaking the laws of pressure and air density.
Jesus feeds a crowd by multiplying fish and loaves of bread, which breaks the physical law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Jesus turns water into wine, and God turns a river into blood. Again, matter is being created and the laws of chemistry and being broken.
God/Jesus raise people from the dead, breaking the laws governing human physiology.
Every miracle in the Bible breaks the laws of physics in some way or another. The explanation IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m used to hearing is that God, being omnipotent, does not have to follow these laws. So why would he have to follow them when creating the Earth?
No, there are findings which would certainly disprove evolution. But your example was simply an argument from incredulity: you could not think of a way that the mimic octopus evolved, therefore evolution is false. Hopefully you can see why this argument is a logical fallacy.
And there you go. You just proved my point. Nothing can or will ever be inconsistent with evolution, right? Evolution is perfection, it has no flaws, and never will. In fact it's so perfect that it's never been wrong even from it's beginning. Right?
How would water get buried under rock? It has a lower density; the rock would sink.
How much sediment would be brought up during a world wide flood? Water itself would also get buried with the biomass. The sediments also created the layers.
Question: If time created the layers alone, why is all animal life buried like there was a flood? The Bible says the flood started when the fountains of the deep broke up. Which means marine life gets buried first. And because all the water came up, the sediments were burying things right where the lived. Which means bottom water dwellers first, which is what we see. Then middle water dwellers second, then top dwellers and land animals. Which goes right along with a flood. Can you explain that?
I see several problems with this theory. For this to happen as youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve described, the sediment would need to be deposited in smooth layers, one after the other. A sudden eruption of water from the ground would not result in gradual sediment deposit, and animals would most likely be thrown all over the place rather than being killed instantly where they were standing. And since sediment erosion requires a massive amount of water in the first place, why would animals be buried with sediment before the water reached them? Water flows much faster than mud or rocks, and it seems logical that in a flood most animals would drown before being buried alive with sediment. Where did all the sediment come from anyways?
If the sediments were burying things right where they lived, why do we have fossils above the oil? The oil represents a large amount of biomass that was covered by sediment during the flood, correct? Yet we find plenty of fossils, of both marine and land dwelling animals, above the oil. Marine fossils are not restricted to the lowest layers. Furthermore, we see similar types of animals buried in the same layers but absent from others. Look at the picture of fossil layers you posted in your last reply, and youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll notice that dinosaurs are restricted to a specific region below mammals. This includes flying dinosaurs... which should have held out the longest if sediment suddenly buried all living things, right? Why is it that we find no mammals below a certain point, and no dinosaurs above a certain point?
Let's see you carve a rock and make it look exact since you imply to be the local rock carving expert. And by the way, you have to use the Inca carving tools, not modern tools. Let's see how close you can get. Let's see if you can do better. Or would that make you face the reality of your claim?
You see you did not even take into consideration the primitive tools they used to do this. you just figured they had dremel tools, pre-cut patterns to follow etc... Why else would you claim it could be done better then it has?
Also, how would they know how they looked as well?
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s exactly my point. They had very basic carving tools, and the pictures they were able to make are only crude representations of the way something might actually look. Which is why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fairly poor argument to say that an Inca drawing must have been inspired by a specific type of dinosaur skin, when in reality the crosshatch pattern could represent any type of reptilian scale. And a large reptile does not necessarily have to represent an extinct dinosaur. There are plenty of paintings and carvings all over the world which show imagined creatures that are based off real ones, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not about to go digging for unicorn fossils anytime soon.