h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

life consists of living by faith, if you believe there is scientific
proof for evolution you have accepted a lie.
www.icr.org
a little research prooves it takes as much faith to believe
evolution as creation.
living should be the progressive development that allegidly is the
framework of evolution.
a little research into eternal life will prove more important
than taking a stand for either theory

There's just as much proof for both; scientists favour evolution, but it IS possible that there's another super-inteligence controling it all so everything happens at the right time. Personally? I think evolution was spurred by God, and the "days" in the bible are actually AGES, i.e. "in my day".

I like your thought and it comes down to what you believe.
this link has changed a few scientists belief---
http://www.icr.org
personaly I believe GOD means what He says (john 3:16)
my biggest obsticle is knowing what He says. eternity must be real
and eternal life is what I accept as a gift of love.

Hello,
I have many things to say on the subject of evolution. I am discussing evolution as a process after ife came to be. I would like to say that by any good definition of science Creation-Science is false science. Science by definition is a way of knowing by natural means. Not super-natural, the fact that Creation-Science incorporates supernatural things exempts it as a science.
First off mutations occur about four times every replication of DNA. Granted most of these changes in somatic cells have no effect, but in mutations which do occur in meiosis, these effect offspring and can have serious changes some good some bad. Now lets take for instance sickle cell anemia where having the recessive allele can prevent malaria but not having the gene at all does no coverage. Being homozygous recessive for this gene is very bad. The reason we haven't evolved in this manner is because prevention and elimination of malaria has ended any motivating force. The way i see it, is with all these mutations and changes done all the time for billions of years with enviromental factors favoring one change over another is bound to do something. I hate it when people say "Well, look at the eye, it is so complex how could have that happened?".Also, when people ask why evolution isn't being observed, they are in fact wrong. Look at these new super-bacteria, that anti-biotics can't kill off and has everyone scared, the only reason they came to be is that all the sanitizing and killing of bacteria that don't have the mutation to resist anti-biotics die off, leaving the one that does to reproduce about every 30 minutes. Take this over a period of sanitizinf years leaves still a great population of normal infectious bacteria and a small growing population of super-bacteria. I am not going to go into anymore examples and overwhelming proof for the fact that things have changed and they haven't been set just the way they are, I have another suggestion. GO take a honors biology class in a public high school. I appreciate peoples ideas about how this was all set into motion, and there are plenty of religions to explain that. Now I am sure all of you have heard the Oparin hypothesis and the Miller test which made it a theory. Oparin found that the early atmosphere contained methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. Now Oparin said that lightning discharges and concentrations of ultraviolet radiation coming from a newer sun (newer suns are shown to give off more radiation than older ones) can give energy for these things to bond. Now Stanley Miller created the situations of this in a laboratory and then shocked it. If anyone knows the chemical formulas for the above mentioned gases know that those are the components of an amino acid. The tested theory, That spontaneous synthesizing of organic molecules can occur in a early and extreme atmosphere where the oxygen level is reduced because early prokaryotes haven't added extra oxygen to the atmosphere. The reason Oparin proposed that this no longer occurs is because oxygen is a strong oxidizing agent which disrupts chemical bonds by extracting electrons. Now how archabacteria or a virus can go to a human can be shown through natural selection. I have probably forgot to say something. Please respond if you have any questions.

Thankyou, Osiris

Hi Osiris,
Please don't get narked when I say what I'm gonna say, cos I do like discussing this sort of thing! When you say you hate it when people say about the eye being complex etc, is it because you find it difficult to answer? See you've either got to say that the first working eye just appeared, in one generation, fully working..or that all the separate pieces evolved gradually until it worked! i.e. first you need a whole in head, then the gubbins to take the info to the brain (assuming the brain has already got a bit that can process visual info), then a lens etc etc. The trouble with that is that, IF evolution works it would get rid of stuff that either endangered a species (hole in the head) or stuff that isn't needed (lenses, gubbins). Evolution wouldn't have a memory; it wouldn't think.."Aaah I've made a lens..I'll keep that and evolve a retina and a pupil later!"
Ok, not very scientifically put I grant you but I can't fault the logic.

Over to you!

This post has been removed.

Every single point made here derives from a misunderstanding of evolution and science.

Proteins are not considered to have spontaneously come together. One only has to look at RNA, the self-catalytic precursor to DNA. Evidence: Ribosomal RNA which to this day remains a part of ribosomes. Proteins and DNA *EVOLVED* from RNA.

If you were to re-run early evolution today it wouldn't happen. The Earth's atmosphere today is oxidising in nature, which tends to disrupt the necessary chemical reactions. In early earth history the environment was reducing in nature, which was condusive to such reactions. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that life first occured in water, I don't think anyone knows.

"Fox’s Experiment"
Ad hominem attack. Countered my Miller-Urey.

DNA evolved. Read some Dawkins.

Looking purely at the probabilities of a self-replicating molecule as an isolated single event, the chances look astronomical. But what are the chances of such an event happening happening within a timeframe of a billion years, AND seeing as it only has to happen ONCE? Pretty good I'd say.

"An error in the sequence of nucleotides making up a gene would render the gene completely useless."
Not unless this gene has been duplicated elsewhere in the genome, so the original copy can go on about its business freeing up the gene to evolve.

"neither natural selection nor mutations make any contribution to the claim that different species have evolved and transformed into one another."
Laughable, and not worth a comment.

Natural selection: Those who reproduce more successfully will become more common. Is this REALLY SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Industrial Melanism has been observed many, many times with numerous species in numerous countries. Forgive me if I trust a biologist over a person who cannot grasp the complexities of natural selection.

"My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve."
I'm amazed that you can make this link, but not see the link between Santa and a benevolent God that created the entire universe and watches over us.

"The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change."
Nope.

Mutations are more commonly deleterious (note: NOT harmful). These deleterious mutations are either neutral; that is changed a nucleotide, but not an amino acid (die to the redundancy of the genetic code); or the change a duplicated gene. If they are either neutral of beneficial they are preserved. If they are harmful they will be selected against. Neutral mutations build up over time and when an environmental change occurs that, by chance, happen to suit such mutations it become beneficial.

"And that was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. It does not have the capability to add a new organ to a living organism, remove it, or transfer the organism into another species."
Read about 'homeotic' or 'master' genes. Read about the comparative evolutionary development of the heart from arthropods to mammals (and please don't claim that I'm saying that we evolved from insects).

"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme."
Nope. Read Dhobzansky (a VERY famous geneticist) who created many artificial species in the lab.

"All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results."
Like the sickle cell anaemia allele that conveys resistance to the malarial parasite Plasmodium?

"l ) The direct effect of mutations is harmful"
Nope. See above.

"2 ) Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA"
Nope. See above.

"3) In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism"
Like, during meiosis, where the chromosomes rearrange and recombine to form new variants and increase the genetic diversity of the next generation further?

Never mind. I thought the sheer length of this post would show some promise, but it just shows a complete lack of understanding. Oh well.

Ste

This post has been removed.