Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
CORRECT! Chris this is the first accurate thing you've said - indeed it doesn't happen randomly - and here is where you show your true ignorance of the theory.
I'm going to guess you haven't studied biological evolution, specifically natural selection and genetics - if you did you would know it isn't random - not at all. Lets go to school....
Natural selection is driven by the environment - it literally 'selects' the best ('fittest' if you like) life form - which through the nature of its 'success' is able to pass on those genes. As the environment changes so do selection pressures which 'choose' the best organism for the environment at that time. No organism is good/bad or better/worse it all depends on the environment at the time.
As the environment changes continually and mutagenic changes work their way into an organisms' genome you have the mechanism for evolution. That isn't random at all - the 'guiding hand' is the environment.
On the subject of DNA Iâ??ll come out and say it: DNA did not give rise to the first life. Yikes! like nobody thought that before. DNA has no way of being part of the very first life form because DNA makes RNA make protein makes DNA. Without proteins, you canâ??t make more DNA.
By itself, DNA is relatively inert. It doesnâ??t do anything special unless thereâ??s the cellular framework around to utilise the information encoded within its nucleotide sequence. As such, DNA could not have existed in the first organism.
But doesnâ??t this falsify Darwinian evolution? Uh, no, it doesnâ??t. The main reason is that evolution doesnâ??t predict that DNA was present in the first lifeform at all. This was simply something that scientists thought could be true, but the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection do not in any conceivable way hinge on DNA being present in the first lifeform. As such, itâ??s not a prediction made by evolutionary theory, and its falsification has no bearing on the truth of evolution.
:thumbsup:
