Obviously these are my opinion, but your ideas about scripture are also your opinion so . . .
In the Garden yes. I'm not talking about the garden. The Garden is a tiny spot on earth. Why is getting kicked out of the garden such a bad thing if the entire earth is the same paradise?
But oddly enough, none of them are mentioned in scripture until much later, they just "appear" out of nowhere.
No, it is not. We do not have any way to assert that "the garden" has any dimensions ,as we may assume, nor can it be located, anywhere.
There are plenty of fossil horses with more toes than modern horses. The most recent fossil horses had 3 toes. You can also see the horse's wrist and elbow etc. All of the same bones in our arms are there. And a horse hoof is basically just a giant fingernail.
Because of the human brain. Last research I saw basically said it's almost impossible to take in enough food to have the energy to grow a huge brain and a huge body at the same time. Brains are tremendously expensive. This is why almost all members of the animal kingdom have relatively small ones.
I notice that you make tons of speculative claims that you cannot prove. :rotfl:You can ridicule it all you like. It's reality.
Notice which finger horses have left? :chuckle:
It's a reason, it's not the only reason. Also note, to till the ground. The garden produced food on its own, outside the garden, not so. The garden was a special place, not just because of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Except, that's not what the scripture is implying. You have to make up an unsaid explanation otherwise. Plus it's genetically impossible for the human race to have come from literally two people, only 6000 years ago. You would have only a tiny amount of genetic diversity. Humans would be as bad off as cheetahs. Not to mention all the other organisms after an only two survive global flood. No genetic evidence for either event.
Not speculation. They are homologous structures. All vertebrates have the same bones in their limbs. They start off as almost identical embryos. What makes the difference is how they develop and how the bones grow differently. Some are longer in one species and not another. This comes from a basic biology text, the one I normally use in fact.
And the claims are?
:rotfl: Oh, you're serious. Wow, that's some class A level delusion and projection. Have you been taking lessons from Trump? Common Descent is not remotely fragile. It gets stronger all the time. It's very difficult not to run into in biology.
I'll say it again. If you deny evolution you're not consistent with good science. People have all kinds of reasons for rejecting evolution. None of them are based on objective evaluation of the evidence.
Never said it was magic. It's far more complex than computer code and relies on a lot of chemical interactions. The analogy really isn't a very great one for the purposes of evaluating evolution. Partly because I don't believe you understand biology or computer code so . . .
Cheetahs are adapted from a cat kind. With adaptation comes a cost to genetic integrity. Adam and Eve had unadapted DNA; its integrity was as good as it gets.
You keep making things up to describe DNA that we don't agree with. It's not a thought experiment; it's not an analogy; DNA is a code — it's information.
And you ASSUME that the structures indicate a descendant relationship.Not speculation. They are homologous structures. All vertebrates have the same bones in their limbs. They start off as almost identical embryos. What makes the difference is how they develop and how the bones grow differently. Some are longer in one species and not another. This comes from a basic biology text, the one I normally use in fact.
Denying what is obvious is your problem.
When you also find fossils in the ground that show intermediate steps between forms, when the same genes are found in fish, when every organism has the same pattern of bones just modified, why assume a common designer in the human-like sense?
You just asserted the existence of "genetic integrity". There is no such thing.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. A thousand times wrong. Without genetic diversity, an organism is clonal. The first environmental change that appeared would wipe out the species. WE have such things without diversity. They're called inbred lines.
It's like asking to give a car with square concrete blocks for wheels a "seat at the table". Some ideas are just clearly stupid.
It depends on what you're going to do with it. If you're going to pretend that because mutating computer code usually breaks it, therefore because DNA can also be represented in code, mutations usually break DNA, there's a serious logical flaw in that assertion. This is because mutating code representing DNA is not the same as mutating DNA because they are fundamentally different structures.
You never explained what you mean by "the code of DNA". I told you to properly model function you'd have to model chemistry.
It's not the same as computer code. Representing it using computer code doesn't make it one and the same. That's like creating artificial flowers, then complaining that they don't photosynthesize. A representation is not the same thing as the thing itself.
So you're retracting your admission that a genome could be represented in binary.
:yawn:
Uhh I did that in the OP.
Nope. But biology seems to be your third or fourth at best. You implied that we were only talking about the code of DNA but not all DNA. What parts are excluded then?
You could, only in the sense of modeling the underlying chemical basis.
Highly improbable but that's not what evolutionary theory says. So you're setting up yet another straw man. Dishonesty is your favorite tactic still.
What are you even talking about? If everything is genetically identical (without any genetic diversity), as per your assertion, that's clonal.
Assertion. Zero evidence. How about you provide some evidence. Any evidence.
Heat is the entropic cost for an organism. Mutations do happen. But most are neutral, some are negative, some are beneficial. Selection removes the detrimental alleles fairly efficiently, depending on the species.
And when you start dealing in scientific approaches to ideas rather than just asserting and ridiculing I'll be happy to discuss them.