Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cimber

Evolution: A Detailed Anaylsis

125 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hehe

Nice thread, but you forgot to add:

1) Why the Modern evolutionary synthesis didn't predict or anticipate that the genes controlling how a tiny fruit fly’s body and organs are made also control the making of most animals, including man. (Hox genes)

2) Why the Modern evolutionary synthesis didn't predict that lateral gene transfer played a fundamental role in microbial evolution. Most evolutionary biologists resisted the idea that lateral gene transfer would be so important in microbial evolution.

3) What the Modern evolutionary synthesis's stand is on Junk DNA. Does evolutionary theory predict it should be functional? Or does it predict that its the flotsam and jetsam left over from the tinkering blind watchmaker?

4) Why Darwinian theory explained why RNA polymerase could not proofread. Now it explains why RNA polymerase can proofread.

5) Why Darwinian theory can explain why an appendix would be functionless, and now explains why the appendix does indeed have a function... etc.

Edited by Hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DogsHead
Nice thread, but you forgot to add:

1) Why the Modern evolutionary synthesis didn't predict or anticipate that the genes controlling how a tiny fruit fly’s body and organs are made also control the making of most animals, including man. (Hox genes)

2) Why the Modern evolutionary synthesis didn't predict that lateral gene transfer played a fundamental role in microbial evolution. Most evolutionary biologists resisted the idea that lateral gene transfer would be so important in microbial evolution.

3) What the Modern evolutionary synthesis's stand is on Junk DNA. Does evolutionary theory predict it should be functional? Or does it predict that its the flotsam and jetsam left over from the tinkering blind watchmaker?

4) Why Darwinian theory explained why RNA polymerase could not proofread. Now it explains why RNA polymerase can proofread.

5) Why Darwinian theory can explain why an appendix would be functionless, and now explains why the appendix does indeed have a function... etc.

Perhaps, as Cimbers thread is an introduction, these objections are a little specific? None particularly damage the essential solidity of Evolutionary theory, and pointing out that correct methodology continually adds to the theory is, well, fairly obvious?

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Nicely done Cimbers.

For antiaging a nice completely man made species that we created by breeding - Ovis aries The domestic sheep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
evancj

Cimber,

Thank you for taking the time to put that intro to evolution together. I appreciate the time and effort you put in to this presentation. Unfortunately I think you’re preaching to the choir, as some of the religious folks see evolution as a clear and present danger to their world view (why I don’t know). Anyway keep fighting the good fight.

Antiaging,

Can you please calculate the odds of god existing for me?

I looked for proof of human footprints along side of dinosaur foot prints, and found tons of articles (mostly on religious sites) but did not see one photo showing them side by side together in the same substrate. Do you have any you can provide? Also I would like to turn your incomplete fossil argument around on you and ask; where are the fossilized remains of humans along side of dinosaurs? After all we have found spear points, knife marks artwork, and other overwhelming evidence of humans existing with and eating mega fauna such as the wooly mammoth, mastodon, and others. Wouldn’t we find this same evidence we existed with dinosaurs?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html

See the above link for evidence that refutes your claim for human and dino tracks found in Texas.

As Cimber suggested your arguments would be much more convincing if instead of regurgitating or cutting and pasting the misinformed arguments of others you actually educate your self and show understanding of the evolutionary process. If you really understood you could see how funny your post actually is.

Edited by evancj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ConservativePessimist

Just a question: wouldn't current evidence suggest that most evolution happens in quick bursts rather than small changes over long time?

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be), but haven't there been very few "in between" species found, but more often the parent species have been found?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DogsHead
Antiaging,

Can you please calculate the odds of god existing for me?

Ha! fantastic Evancj! I was considering throwing Richard Dawkins cascading improbability argument into the ring. I hesitate because it is a quite brutal use of logic, and (if one is using logic as evidence of divine intervention) rather destroys the likelyhood of god as a function of probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
camlax
Nice thread, but you forgot to add:

1) Why the Modern evolutionary synthesis didn't predict or anticipate that the genes controlling how a tiny fruit fly’s body and organs are made also control the making of most animals, including man. (Hox genes)

Actually modern synthesis does include this. Take a high level class on molecular genetics or genetic evolution. Scientific theories update themselves.

2) Why the Modern evolutionary synthesis didn't predict that lateral gene transfer played a fundamental role in microbial evolution. Most evolutionary biologists resisted the idea that lateral gene transfer would be so important in microbial evolution.

Scientists are skeptical of all new ideas, they have to "prove themselves worthy" to be considered. This is how we get science correct. And modern syn. does account for this now now (see reply to number 1).

3) What the Modern evolutionary synthesis's stand is on Junk DNA. Does evolutionary theory predict it should be functional? Or does it predict that its the flotsam and jetsam left over from the tinkering blind watchmaker?

Junk DNA is an old term that the public is still using. Much of "junk" DNA does have nominal uses. Some still has no function (extended repeats), except maybe to serve as a "marker" to reading systems. So of non-functional DNA does seem to be an artifact of evolution. This can be seen with certain genes not functional in humans, but functional in the other great apes.

4) Why Darwinian theory explained why RNA polymerase could not proofread. Now it explains why RNA polymerase can proofread.

Darwin nor his theory never knew what RNA, much less a polymerase was. Since the discovery of genetics we have been able to update evolutionary theory to account for it (which add more support to evolutionary theory). Science is allowed to update its body of knowledge....

5) Why Darwinian theory can explain why an appendix would be functionless, and now explains why the appendix does indeed have a function... etc.

See the above reply. Science updates its understandings. Darwin theory never said that the appendix had to be functionless, it did say if it was, it was likely a vestigial organ. Also the function of the appendix is not an absolute, we have good evidence it does function, but that does not mean we are 100% correct.

Just a question: wouldn't current evidence suggest that most evolution happens in quick bursts rather than small changes over long time?

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be), but haven't there been very few "in between" species found, but more often the parent species have been found?

Evolution progress both ways, "short hops" and "long strides". Its not as simple as "fast or slow". There are many, many, many, factors that contribute to the speed of evolution such as; fecundity, population size, rate of mutation (synonymous and non-synonymous), selection pressures, reproductive success etc. Frankly, this is best suited for a mid to high level class on evolution in a formal education setting (as there is no "quick" answer) rather than a informal forum post on evolution 101.

There have been many "in between" species found. Species is a confusing term, it delivers the idea that a "type" of organism is static. A species does not really exist so to say, unless we were able to stop time. Species are constantly in flux, never ever static. I prefer the idea of lineages as that paints a better picture (at least for me).

I am not sure what you consider in between, if you mean in form and function (which is what you should mean), then my above statement is correct. We have found many fossils which represent transitional form and function of parts.

Despite the feeling I get that most "questioning" evolution are not going to take the initiative to read up on it, I'll post you some links anyway.

A few transition fossils

Also if you are unwilling to take a class on modern biology or evolution then I would recommend these books for help answering your question (about the speed at which evolution occurs).

Mark Ridley, Evolution 3rd ed. (A bit lengthy but targeted at 400-500 level biology students, so requires a good foundation in biology as well as statistics and calc. but can answer most of your questions)

Mark Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. (A good read, delves into the origins and evolution of our species particularly, easier read then his other books)

Jerry Coyne's Speciation. (Details mechanisms with examples of speciation and the varying types of mechanisms that lead to speciation. Can get rather in depth, I believe it is aimed at early to mid level graduate students in biology).

James W. Valentine's Origin of Phyla. (Arguably the most respected and distinguished paleobiologist, unites many aspects of biology to explain).

Kirschner and Gerhart's The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma (Uses lots of molecular genetics to explain modes of adaptations and rise of complex parts, not to bad a read for people with decent understanding of chemistry and biology (decent being around a freshman-sophomore level))

Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. If you read no other book about science and evolution the rest of your life, make sure you read this. In fact I would advise everyone read this book, If you are unsure of who Mayr is wiki him. The book starts at Scala Naturae, Aristotle's Essentialism, then right up to modern evolutionary biology. Really everyone should read this book, evolutionist, creationists, IDist, UFO creationists etc!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scriewy-

mheeee.......

all nice and that for evo, i just cant get over 1 thing: species are built to interbreed only with their own species, we can have many breeds in 1 species but they stay the same species no matter in what order these breeds interbreed.

so lets say a population of 1 cell organisms has landed on earth yaY, different species interbreed as they should, but different species cant breed with other species, so later every species will reach their limit of evolution and only the fittest will exist, ok so now we got lets say 10 different species fully loaded by evo for ultimate survivel, and now what ? they start eating eachother, dominance is established, now what ? the fittest one is at it's best he has no reason to evolve no where and he cant evolve any more because he reached the limit of interbreeding combinations.

so when exactly do single cell organisms or what ever is the simplest life form becomes a multi cell creature ?

oh oh and why the frak does he decides to crawl out of water to land, when there is even no food on land for him because he is the first one to crawl onto land ? (why i say in such confidence the first move was onto land, is because if we speak of simplest organisms then they are water bound, no need to break owr head on this 1, right)

now technically when the first multi cell creature crawled to land there should be some 1 waiting for him to be eaten by him, which means the first landers were herbivorous.

now lets think here of another obstacle, the transition Yay. i'l guess first creatures were a pile of slimy mucus that manuvered in water better then when beaching and crawled awkwardly on shore for few minuts and returned to water but every time they did, they thought more and more of the land, over gazilion of years developed more suitable limbs for land till perfection.

but whos hand was in it to start the change is another story.

Edited by scriewy-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DogsHead
mheeee.......

all nice and that for evo, i just cant get over 1 thing: species are built to interbreed only with their own species, we can have many breeds in 1 species but they stay the same species no matter in what order these breeds interbreed.

Wait, wait, wait....

You are starting wrongheaded. Evolution and the various mechanisms by which natural selection is brought about, care nothing for the names we attach (which could be seen as arbitrary, but which have longstanding usage) to the various levels of life. So species aren't "built" to interbreed with their own species - dna works in a very specific manner, and - in one way or another - evolution is the gradual change in dna. So speciation (where you get a new species developing from the old one) is gradual change brought about by various pressures on a population - geographical isolation, environmental change, competition, etc.

so lets say a population of 1 cell organisms has landed on earth yaY, different species interbreed as they should, but different species cant breed with other species, so later every species will reach their limit of evolution and only the fittest will exist, ok so now we got lets say 10 different species fully loaded by evo for ultimate survivel, and now what ? they start eating eachother, dominance is established, now what ? the fittest one is at it's best he has no reason to evolve no where and he cant evolve any more because he reached the limit of interbreeding combinations.

If the above didn't resolve this question, could you phrase it another way?

so when exactly do single cell organisms or what ever is the simplest life form becomes a multi cell creature ?

oh oh and why the frak does he decides to crawl out of water to land, when there is even no food on land for him because he is the first one to crawl onto land ? (why i say in such confidence the first move was onto land, is because if we speak of simplest organisms then they are water bound, no need to break owr head on this 1, right)

You know all this is easy info to find if you want to look...

Have a look at an evolutionary timeline to clear up what happened when...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze

Cimber,

I LOVE LOVE LOVE your OP. Many kudos to you!

I see it like this:

Evolution is a pretty solid theory, and yes there are some holes in it that we haven't answered...yet. Creationism has so many holes that it's barely a 'theory' at all. Why would a rational human being choose to believe in the theory out of those two that has the least amount of evidence? That makes the least amount of sense? I never understood that.

Another thing I would like to ask Cimber, is that by the sound of your posts, you are most likely Atheist. But, when talking about evolution, is there any part of the entire theory that states that there was not intelligent design in the beginning? How accepted would it be in the scientific community that a god created the building blocks to what we have now, and designed it with the capability to improve on itself as changes are made? Can you answer those questions without your own personal beliefs please, it has been so hard for me to determine if the theory of evolution discounts an initial intelligent design because people's own opinions come into it.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
mheeee.......

all nice and that for evo, i just cant get over 1 thing: species are built to interbreed only with their own species, we can have many breeds in 1 species but they stay the same species no matter in what order these breeds interbreed.

I work with trees which produce fertile inter-specific crosses routinely. The boundary between two similar species can get pretty blurred.

Example 1: plains cottonwood (Populus sargentii) and eastern cottonwood (P. deltoides) have produced crosses to such an extent that along the western edge of the Great Plains, they have essentially become one species.

Example 2: Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) has crossed with eastern red-cedar (J. virginiana) in Wyoming to produce a cross that is so successful it has excluded both parent species from large parts of the state.

Example 3: Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) is currently subjecting shortleaf pine (P. echinata) to genetic swamping. Human activitiesa are accelerating the trend.

In all three cases, two species are uniting to become a new species. So your statement may need a little modification.

The same thing happened to Bison latifrons: it was swamped by Bison bison. BUT: some Bison latifrons genes still survive in Bison bison and are now part of its genetic complement.

Strictly speaking, living things are not restricted to interbreeding only with their own "kind." This is why genetically modified crops are a concern: should artificial genes escape into unrelated species, we could start a major environmental disaster. What would be the consequences of BT-producing genes rendering a plant like ragweed immune to herbivory? Evolution has a major impact on your life whether you like it or not.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
4. Humans and Apes Share a Common Ancestor Humans did not evolve from Apes. They merely share the same common ancestor.

Have to agree with your excellent post in most respects, but:

That common ancestor was proconsul, a creature so ape-like that if we saw one in a zoo, you or I would immediately proclaim it a chimpanzee. While humans have undergone considerable evolution since proconsul, the chimps have changed very little. While humans AND chimps evolved from proconsul, it's still a fairly-accurate description to say that humans evolved from apes.

The feature that distinguishes the apes from the monkeys is that apes lack tails.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nephilim_Slayer

You all can stay at the zoo but I will always believe humans were created with dignity and grace and our existance is not just by mere coincidence. Evolution to me is like this, you take all the complex pieces of a grandfather clock and disassemble it completely and leave all the thousands of parts inside the grandfather clock. If you shake it over trillions of years every part will eventually fit back perfectly in its original position and make the clock functional again. You woul have to shake it for a pretty long time i'd say, and I don't think that those parts would ever go back to their original positions. And evolution is 10x more complex than the grandfather clock analogy. To me evolution sounds bogus just as to you creationism does, so who's right and who's wrong? I guess we'll see in the end, because if evolutionists are right then we don't have to be responsible for our actions to anybody, and we just turn to dust and our complex and beautiful minds cease to work. But if creationism is correct, and their is an intelligent creator, I feel for atheists because It won't be pretty.

Edited by Nephilim_Slayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
EDIT: As Neph kindly edited his post... Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nephilim_Slayer
Putting up a sarcastic front because someone made an effort to teach? :no:

There are many other threads where creationism can be discussed, don't drag this one off topic.

I edited it just for you raptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyWeather
You all can stay at the zoo but I will always believe humans were created with dignity and grace and our existance is not just by mere coincidence. Evolution to me is like this, you take all the complex pieces of a grandfather clock and disassemble it completely and leave all the thousands of parts inside the grandfather clock. If you shake it over trillions of years every part will eventually fit back perfectly in its original position and make the clock functional again. You woul have to shake it for a pretty long time i'd say, and I don't think that those parts would ever go back to their original positions. And evolution is 10x more complex than the grandfather clock analogy. To me evolution sounds bogus just as to you creationism does, so who's right and who's wrong? I guess we'll see in the end, because if evolutionists are right then we don't have to be responsible for our actions to anybody, and we just turn to dust and our complex and beautiful minds cease to work. But if creationism is correct, and their is an intelligent creator, I feel for atheists because It won't be pretty.

A grandfather clock is a human invention as well as being created for a single purpose. Your anology is a rather poor attempt to disprove evolution, being that cells can adapt, mutate, become infected, die, become unstable ectect. Whereas metal cannot, unless you yourself melt the metal, bend it, shape it, or put the peices together.

A grandfather clock cannot adapt to anything, cells can given the chance through reproductive 'mishaps' - I say 'mishaps' as they can either be generous to survival or a mistake and doom the individual: ie: Zonkey's are sterile, the zebra and donkey can and will mate if they are around one another. However if zebras and donkeys roamed the wild together and breeding between them became a natural thing, then perhaps a zonkey may be born able to mate, and after a few thousand years, eventually you'll have a new speices.

Now, have a grandfather clock and a digital grandfather clock in the same room. After a few thousand years, they will still be standing next to each other, and looking rather decayed. Nothing will have happened apart from this.

The grandfather clock requires human intervention to exist as well as to work.

Your cells need no human intervention to adapt, change, become infected, die or mitose/create more cells.

A very poor anology for you to use. Biological and metalic constructions make very poor attempts of comparative equations.

Edit: fixed a typo.

Edited by Chokmah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
I edited it just for you raptor.

Thanks. :tu:

Nephilim,

Clock components do not reproduce. They do not mutate. They are not subject to natural selection. They do not have a natural affinity for each other.

This video refutes your claim nicely.

. If you're truly interested in a debate then I'd ask that you watch this video then post what you think. Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
You all can stay at the zoo but I will always believe humans were created with dignity and grace and our existance is not just by mere coincidence. Evolution to me is like this, you take all the complex pieces of a grandfather clock and disassemble it completely and leave all the thousands of parts inside the grandfather clock. If you shake it over trillions of years every part will eventually fit back perfectly in its original position and make the clock functional again. You woul have to shake it for a pretty long time i'd say, and I don't think that those parts would ever go back to their original positions. And evolution is 10x more complex than the grandfather clock analogy. To me evolution sounds bogus just as to you creationism does, so who's right and who's wrong? I guess we'll see in the end, because if evolutionists are right then we don't have to be responsible for our actions to anybody, and we just turn to dust and our complex and beautiful minds cease to work. But if creationism is correct, and their is an intelligent creator, I feel for atheists because It won't be pretty.

Ummm hold the phone...how does evolution got anyhting to do with being responsible for our own actions??? how??

Last time i checked evolution was NOT about having responsibility LOL I just highlighted the silly parts to that post of yours that do not show how you understand any of it...evolution AND Creationism....heck to state that only atheists are evolutionists is really NOT that smart of you.......I think you need to brush up on bible study ...cuz frankly you have never shown any wise words to use as a defense.....and tthat grandfather clock analogy was absurd...evolution is about EVOLVING not shaking things together LOL its about evolving...turning into something else GROWTH that takes a lot of time

Seriously though Nep...there are christians on here that can carry out a full on debate on evo v's creation...and they do it was careful wording and they think before they post....these are called smart christians that actually STUDY the bible..therefore they KNOW what they are talking about....and they NEVER post up silly statements to be used a a defense ...

Maybe you should PM Jor-el, Irish, IAMS or PA for help on this... and I am NOT being sarcastic...what i am doing is trying to lay you constructive words...

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
Thanks. :tu:

Nephilim,

Clock components do not reproduce. They do not mutate. They are not subject to natural selection. They do not have a natural affinity for each other.

This video refutes your claim nicely.

. If you're truly interested in a debate then I'd ask that you watch this video then post what you think.

Correct Raptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DogsHead
You all can stay at the zoo but I will always believe humans were created with dignity and grace and our existance is not just by mere coincidence. Evolution to me is like this, you take all the complex pieces of a grandfather clock and disassemble it completely and leave all the thousands of parts inside the grandfather clock. If you shake it over trillions of years every part will eventually fit back perfectly in its original position and make the clock functional again. You woul have to shake it for a pretty long time i'd say, and I don't think that those parts would ever go back to their original positions. And evolution is 10x more complex than the grandfather clock analogy. To me evolution sounds bogus just as to you creationism does, so who's right and who's wrong? I guess we'll see in the end, because if evolutionists are right then we don't have to be responsible for our actions to anybody, and we just turn to dust and our complex and beautiful minds cease to work. But if creationism is correct, and their is an intelligent creator, I feel for atheists because It won't be pretty.

Others have pointed out the ineptness of this analogy, so I want to address the bolded. I have heard this critcism, or sentiment expressed before - in every case by Christians - and I find this more offensive than almost all other misappropriations of evolutionary theory. How on earth can any human look at, say Orangs or Mountain Gorrilla families, and not see the heartbreaking dignity and beauty of these people - and I use the word advisedly - and not feel kinship for them? I predict that, if our primate cousins are not driven to extinction, we will see them - Bonobos, Chimpanzees, Gorrillas and Orang Utans - included in the universal declaration of human rights by 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dante's Inferno
Others have pointed out the ineptness of this analogy, so I want to address the bolded. I have heard this critcism, or sentiment expressed before - in every case by Christians - and I find this more offensive than almost all other misappropriations of evolutionary theory. How on earth can any human look at, say Orangs or Mountain Gorrilla families, and not see the heartbreaking dignity and beauty of these people - and I use the word advisedly - and not feel kinship for them? I predict that, if our primate cousins are not driven to extinction, we will see them - Bonobos, Chimpanzees, Gorrillas and Orang Utans - included in the universal declaration of human rights by 2020.

So very true I feel that many creationists but themselves so high above other animals that its demeening to them. Yes in many aspects we are superior in many others we're not! Many people think that as an atheist or non-believer that you must be lacking some fulfillment in your life. But when I see that I am part of this huge macrocosm or life each species interconnected the sense of wonder is over-whelming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
You all can stay at the zoo but I will always believe humans were created with dignity and grace and our existance is not just by mere coincidence.

You find it undignified that life originated from organic ooze, yet you somehow think it fitting that Adam was created from mud?

One does not have to be an atheist to find that Evolution makes more sense than any other idea yet proposed.

Religion has some valid concepts to offer mankind, but only if it can separate itself from the superstitions that it has allowed to grow up around itself. You have a lot of work ahead.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Ummm hold the phone...how does evolution got anyhting to do with being responsible for our own actions??? how??

Some current thinking on the topic holds that because ethics impart a survival benefit to a species, ethics are under genetic control and subject to evolution. So the creationist cry about ethics proving god, turns out to be a false proof.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
I don't know how I missed this. I have grown tired of the creation/evolution threads for the most part. You can explain evolution over and over again and the creationist will still claim it is faults, because if evolution is true it blows their literal view of the Bible out of the water. They would rather reject all the evidence and look like fools than do that. Cinder you did a wonderful job on this thread, but if you look at the latest threads on evolution/creation you can see it fell on deaf ears. How sad. Anyway keep up the good work Cinder many be someone will hear. :wub:

The problem is not one of Creationism Vs. Evolution. It is one of Literacy Vs. Illiteracy, not just in evolution, biology and geology, but in the sciences in general and the Bible, as well.

The Bible makes a few statements that can be interpreted as an instantaneous generation of life. But it also can support the creation of life over many millions of years. A great deal of what you are hearing from the Creationist side is no more accurate in regard to the Bible than it is in regard to science.

It is time to save the Bible from fundamentalism.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze

I think Doug summed it up pretty much nicely for me.

I understand why and how Creationists come to their conclusions, and that we are never going to change their minds. They do believe humans are the superior race (which I am sure would be fiercely argued by other species) and therefore that if evolution were true, that puts them on the same level as monkeys and bears and slugs and such.

What I never understood was why can't the Bible be interpreted to include both divine and evolutionary theories? This isn't a black and white issue to me, but more shades of gray than anything.

Here are some questions I have never been able to get answers on, from creationists or evolutionists:

Couldn't God have created life forms, and included the tools for each life form to evolve into something higher? With all the variety he included in the earth, wouldn't it have been wise for him to give cells the ability to mutate, and give species the ability to adapt? If fundamentalist creationism is correct, why is it that the 'perfect' human mold that was created first now being improved upon? Why is it that the physical appearance of races changes based on location and environmental circumstance? What did Adam look like? And why don't all of us look like him? On the other hand, why do evolutionists so vehemently deny the possibility of a divine being, when it is possible that something started the evolutionary process?

I think evolution for the most part is irrefutable, but that doesn't mean that there is not a god. I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic, and I admit there is a possibility of some higher form. What evidence is there to prove otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.