What about all the fossils

They seem to match with an evolutionary theory

There are issues in evolutionary theory hence why its being revised

generally the issue we come about is how did evolution stat

and generlaly life may have been unavoidable and the forms we see today will simply replicate anywhere life is viable

so the idea is both

however there is a massive question of how DNA even came to be, and self replication as thhere is an issue that if i give infinite time and infinite possibilities for combinations I will see information coding for self replication arise... which is not the case.

If we have chaos that functions by certain rules and infinite attempts to creat order, the issue is to create self replicating order, and since the order is no longer subject to the chaos, at least so internally it mus timmediately be formed as self replicating order.

The way proteins fold, the way they interact and are held otgether all seems almost scripted, legitimately it seems designed when you actually look at it, its quite an insane machine this biology we have discovered.

(Personally I have an idea of consciousness playing part in this, to the point were cells have their own consciousness and generally this would change all of biology but all I have is some videos here and there... While I wish I had a lab, im a student and no one will take me seriously)

Scientific theories are revised as better evidence is discovered, that's what makes it science and not dogma. That is not to say that there is no such thing as "scientific dogma", what happens when the evidence is not put first. When that happens, it's not science at all. I do think nature is amazing and complex. I don't see that as a reason to believe in something more complex, unprecedented and untestable like the supernatural. We can observe some things that support the theory of evolution, quite a few things actually. The same can not be said of creation theory or ID. There are also things that don't make sense if one was creating beings, flaws or vestigial structures. I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject but I think this video speaks to some of the issues brought up about abiogenesis, which is really a separate issue from evolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1xnYFCZ9Yg

You are completely wrong. We now know that Neo Darwinism is wrong because horizontal gene transfer has been proven. The argument from Neo Darwinists was that their model which does not include horizontal gene transfer or epigenetics was sufficient to explain diversity of life. We now know that statement was a lie because there was no evidence of that. All studies conducted on mutation rate showed otherwise.
Creationism or ID may not be Science, but Evolutionists are liars. And I would rather have pseudo Science than lying progressivism

wat

first
```Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or lateral gene transfer (LGT)[1][2][3] is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the ("vertical") transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).[4] HGT is an important factor in the evolution of many organisms.[5][6] ```

```The argument from Neo Darwinists was that their model which does not include horizontal gene transfer or epigenetics ````

this

what

uwotm8?

```The argument from Neo Darwinists was that their model which does not include horizontal gene transfer or epigenetics was sufficient to explain diversity of life.```

>does not include horizontal gene transfer

```Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or lateral gene transfer (LGT)[1][2][3] is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the ("vertical") transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).[4] HGT is an important factor in the evolution of many organisms.[5][6] ```

>by reproduction

>natural selection

are you fucking retarded

``` It often involves temperate bacteriophages and plasmids```
(horizontal gene transfer theory)

>inheritable genetic material
>major factors responsible .... include mutations, genetic recombination, natural selection
mutations fucking include alien plasmids

who the fuck is lying, I never even fucking read about darwinism (at least neo-darwinism) but the first two sources claim against you

Do you have trouble reading? Or you have low IQ? You literally posted a definition for HGT that says other than from parents to offsprings and then you posted what Neo Darwinism that says inheritable

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842723/

Read this paper, dumbass

``` inheritable (ĭn-hĕrˈĭ-tə-bəl)►

adj.
That can be inherited: inheritable traits; inheritable property.
adj.
Having the right to inherit or the capability of inheriting: an inheritable heir.
```

```verb (used with object)

to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business.
to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors.
to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors. ```

So, sorry. Scientists disagree with you

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

The Modern Synthesis adds discrete (Mendelian) inheritance to neo-Darwinism. Alternatives to the Modern Synthesis include: symbiogenesis, the idea that major steps in evolution, such as the formation of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms, resulted from cooperation and/or fusion between different organisms; horizontal gene transfer within and between organisms

```Essentially, neo-Darwinism introduced the connection between two important discoveries: the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). By melding classical Darwinism with the rediscovered Mendelian genetics, Darwin's ideas were recast in terms of changes in allele frequencies. Neo-Darwinism thus fused two very different and formerly divided research traditions, the Darwinian naturalists and the experimental geneticists. This fusion took place roughly between 1936 and 1947.

While the modern synthesis remains the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology, in recent years it has both been expanded and challenged as a result of new developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from microevolutionary trends have been challenged.```

```This article argues that the gene-centric interpretations of evolution, and more particularly the selfish gene expression of those interpretations, ```

```selfish gene theory holds that adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation,```

I love how you are just pasting bits to somehow find a counter to the direct statement by the same author

Lol

this is his hypothesis: