Thanks again Russ for your perceptive insight.
The information necessary for the development of a totipotent stem cell into a highly-complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine is already present in the cell.
In a single-cell organism, this information is not present.
Of course - single cell organisms don't have a womb which is absolutely necessary for a mammal to reach gestation maturity.
The only difference inside the cell is in the DNA, and there are
clearly many existing organisms alive on earth today that are intermediate in reproduction methodology from asexual single cell division to single cell sexual life forms and on up to human. The process of reproduction can easily evolve as the organism that are reproducing change from generation to generation -- after all that is what evolution is.
But there is no element in a human cell that is not in a single cell eukaryote organism. DNA has four (4) bases and twenty (20) amino acids and there are no special parts in human DNA that are not in the DNA of a prokaryote bacteria.
This argument you introduced is one of a rank amateur. Professing yourself to be an intelligent evolutionist, you should certainly know better.
I notice that you do not talk about any part of the argument, but instead resort to the
ad hominum attack. What was it you said about distraction and lies?
The "
Russ Tanner Manifesto Lie Test":
One of the most important points I've been attempting to convey all along is this:
When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well.
Certainly you don't address the fact that over 70% of zygotes are completely unable to become human beings.
The information necessary for the development of a totipotent stem cell into a highly-complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine is already present in the cell.
Clearly 70% of the zygotes did not have the necessary equipment in their cells. That's a 2 to 1 failure rate that kind of blows your argument out of the water, eh Russ? Especially those that divided and formed sacs but no embryo.
I mean no offense but I intend to speak the truth with accuracy:
Then you will admit that 70% of zygotes do not, could not, become humans due to natural failure and in spite of medical intervention and the best science can do.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
