Do you? I don't know if I do. I mean, it's all we have and it's all that make sense right now. I can see why many consider it factual. Life can't come from nonlife, and the beings seem to have gotten more complex over time. These are two facts that would lead one to conclude that we all have common ancestors, and throughout out history, small changes were made from birth to birth and we all became increasingly complex. All by chance, of course. And that's what kinda throws me -- it all done by chance. Everyone seems to have it in their head that there's an entity called "mother nature" and that mother nature, for example, gave giraffes long necks so that they can eat from the trees. This, of course, is not true. Giraffes aquired their long necks through random mutation and it prooved to be benificial. The Theory of Evolution makes no attempt to explain how it happened, only that it happened. It's the how part that boggles my mind. How did the eye originate? An eye is a complex part that requires thousands of seperate genes to create. It's a system that not only need to capture light rays, but to send them back to the brain in a form the brain can understand - electric impulses. How did they eye come into play? Wouldn't thousands of genes had to have mutated all at once in order for the mutation to be seen as benificial, and therefore live on? Even the simplest of eyes must take hundreds of genes to be defined properly. What about our own bodies? Which came first? The circulatory system or the respitory system? Without the respitory system, what fed the heart with oxygen? Before the circulatory system, what sent oxygen to the rest of the body? What about the first cell? How many ribonucleotides were required to define that first cell? 100? 50? 25? What were the chanced of the right ribonucleotides coming together to form a working cell? Even if 15 were required, and there are four possible ribonucleotids, that would make 1,073,741,824 possible combinations! How many of these combinations would make valid cells? What are the chanced that a random RNA molecule would equal the blueprints for a working cell? And what about cell replication? An RNA sitting there on it's can't do much. Our own cells need special organelles to transcribe the DNA molecules and transulate them into protiens. What carried these functions out for the first cell, before it ever existed. When I ask myself questions such as these, sometimes I feel like Aliens from outer space or Creationism is a lot more likely. What do you think? ---signature--- People get ready. I'm ready to play. Edited by - utwo007 on February 9, 2002 6:39:39 PM

I can tell by your tone that it wasn''t meant as such, but this kind of discussion will only invite trolls. Without giving away which side of the issue I am on, some 12 year old is going to get on here and start (get ready, I''m about to make up a new buzzword) e-screaming about how their side is right and you (meaning the collective opposition) are ******** with **** and the ******* is *****. Hence proving their argument...apparently.

I love intellectual discussions. Religious/philosophical discussions on a web forum don''t generally count as such. Who knows, maybe the trolls will stay indoors this time.

Having said that, I think God used evolution as His method of creation.

ShadeStorm, the Day_Glo Fish

Some people in USA are brainwashed by religion...So It''s impossible to get anywhere in a discussion of this sort.

Define evolution.

The only part of "evolution" that has been proven true is microevolution where existing information is reused to create something that looks or acts different. Like when bacteria develops an immunity to certain medicines or when a birds beak adjusts to the food sources available. Proving such a thing happens does not prove evolution is true. That''s like congress trying to pass a law on red lights but tossing in a law on tobacco hoping no one will see it. This part of evolution has nothing to do with Intelligent Design or Creationism since it happens in less than a decade and has nothing to do with monkies turning into man. Siamese twins also fall under Microevolution since it''s just the same information used twice.

Macroevolution is where new information is added. This has never been proven or even observed and therefore evolution cannot be called a fact because it is essential to the theory. Even if a scientist could add DNA to existing DNA to create something new, they would then have to prove that the scientists would not be required for it to happen otherwise it''s simply intelligent design.

So in short the real question is, "do you believe in Macroevolution?" And I for one, do not and have no reason to. Everything the scientists are doing in that area requires intelligence.

Ben

[The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | Programming | Gang Wars | The Wall]

It''s a good thing all 12 year olds change. Know, I just hit puberty yesterday so...

You are so misinformed. Taking your Giraffe example, they got long necks through genetic mutations. Now, the mutations with longer necks survived better than the ones with shorter necks. Therefore, they survived and passed on the trait to their young, and so on. This is how this is explained.

Next, your eye example could follow the above, the random mutations that produced eyes benifitted the orginisms more, so they passed on that trait onto thier young.

quote:
From utwo007''s post
What about the first cell? How many ribonucleotides were required to define that first cell? 100? 50? 25? What were the chanced of the right ribonucleotides coming together to form a working cell? Even if 15 were required, and there are four possible ribonucleotids, that would make 1,073,741,824 possible combinations! How many of these combinations would make valid cells? What are the chanced that a random RNA molecule would equal the blueprints for a working cell?

Why do you presume it took us millions of years to evolve? Because of all the random possibilities from mutations.

I sure hope this doesn''t become a religious argument. I''m a religious man, but you can see that I left religion out of my post. Could my religious beliefs had altered my opinon? Perhaps, but look: There is a truth. Did God create the earth from thin air? Whether scientist want to believe it or not is unimportant. If it happened, it happened. It works the other way around. Is evolutionism the correct religion? If so, it doesn''t matter what I believe. I can believe in od as hard as I want to, it will never change the truth.

But this is s discussion about something we''re not sure of. No matter which side you believe, you believe it without sufficient supporting fact. I''m asking people to sate which they believe, and to support it with as many facts as they can. We''re not going to prove anything either way today, so let''s avoid statements like:

1) I believe in creationism because the Bible says so.

-and-

2) I''m an evolutionist because there''s no such thing as God.

I think we can have a pleasant discussion if everyone uses their head and not their emotions.

P.S. >> And granat, that was a loaded statement. It assumes that one view is correct, when there really isn''t sufficient proof for either view. If the scientific proof available to you is all you need to solidify a belief in your mind, so be it -- but it''s still your belief. As if this topic wasn''t already flame war bait, comments like that will only make things worse.

---signature---
People get ready.
I''m ready to play.

quote:Some people in USA are brainwashed by religion.

And some are brainwashed by evolution. Then there are those in both camps who have done their research. Just because some of us aren''t athiests, doesn''t make us ignorant, thank you.

quote:The Theory of Evolution makes no attempt to explain how it happened, only that it happened. It''s the how part that boggles my mind.

Ditto.

quote:I''m a religious man, but you can see that I left religion out of my post.

I''ll try to do the same. The topic is evolution; let''s stay there.

quote:Taking your Giraffe example, they got long necks through genetic mutations. Now, the mutations with longer necks survived better than the ones with shorter necks. Therefore, they survived and passed on the trait to their young, and so on. This is how this is explained.

So how did the ones with shorter necks survive long enough to evolve longer necks?

BTW, I''ll say up front that I believe God created Earth in 6 days. And I agree with what KalvinB said (for a change ).

Chris Barry (crbarry at mts.net)
My Personal Programming Depot

quote:From Andrew Nguyen''s post
You are so misinformed. Taking your Giraffe example, they got long necks through genetic mutations. Now, the mutations with longer necks survived better than the ones with shorter necks. Therefore, they survived and passed on the trait to their young, and so on. This is how this is explained.

I know that. In fact, I explained all of that here:

quote:From utwo007''s post<br>This, of course, is not true. Giraffes aquired their long necks through random mutation and it prooved to be benificial. <br> <hr height=1 noshade></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <br><br>I acknowledged the fact that its a random mutation, and that the mutation was choosen through natural selection. My only comment is that most people forget </i> it''s random. Often, someone will make a statement like "Giraffes have long necks so they can eat from the trees." While this is a quick n'' easy way of explaining evolution and natural selection, it implants the misconception in people''s minds that there''s an entity out there making proactive descisions concerning animals and their welfare. My intention was simply to remind people that it''s truely random.<br><br><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN CLASS=smallfont>quote:<hr HEIGHT=1 noshade><i>From Andrew Nguyen''s post </i> <br>Next, your eye example could follow the above, the random mutations that produced eyes benifitted the orginisms more, so they passed on that trait onto thier young.<br> <hr height=1 noshade></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <br><br>No it can''t. My point was that an eye requires to many genes to have mutated all at once. If an eye did indeed mutate all at once, I could see the obvious advantage, and what you''re saying would be correct. However, if only a few of the genes required to make an eye came into being at first, which is most definitely what must have happened, then it would not create a working eye at all, but rather it probably caused some serious defects in that animal, and natural selection would have weeded it out.<br><br><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN CLASS=smallfont>quote:<hr HEIGHT=1 noshade><br><i>From Andrew Nguyen''s post </i> <br>Why do you presume it took us millions of years to evolve? Because of all the random possibilities from mutations. <hr height=1 noshade></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE> <br><br>Ever hear of the monkeys and typewriters analogy? Basically, the idea is that if you had one hundred monkeys in a room, each with a typewriter, and they typed for long enough, they''d soon type the Great American Novel. This idea is commonly used by Evolutionists to push their idea that "random occurrances" over "millions of years" can result in what we have today.<br><br>But the truth is that one hundred monkeys in a room have a one in 5.6*10^68 chance of writing a 50-letter haikku. An novel is out of the question.<br><br>Apply that concept to RNA molecule formation. How many ribonucleotides would be require for the simplest of organisms? 15 was a joke, it would take a lot more than that, if you ask me. However, since I don''t <i>know</i> the answer to that, I''ll assume its 15. Now, there are four basic ribonucleotides (I actually believe there are several more, but I''ll throw you another bone here with the math), and therefore a 15-ribonucleotide RNA molecule could have over 1 billion combinations. Considering that a) the majority of these combinations would produce absolutely mothing useful, and b) that the Earth wasn''t exactly condusive to allowing organic molecules to form at the time, I would have to believe that this process of creating the first cell would have taken the better part of the earth''s entire lifespan thus far. This leaves little room for the other genetic miracles to have taken place. <br><br><b><font color=ff3333>—signature—</font> </b> <br>People get ready.<br>I''m ready to play.