Toe. A Fact Or Belief?

[Young Mother Atheist]

ToE. A fact or belief

Here is an excellent article by Stephen Jay Gould about evolution as both a fact and a theory.

 

I find the premise of this topic to be rediculous. Just because we don't know everything and we haven't explained everything (yet) doesn't mean that evolution is a belief. Evolution has explained so much that I have no reason to think it can't explain the "gaps."

 

Oh, and what two books did you read?

 

what does it matter? i learned something from them, did i tell a lie in the above article. i stated facts with proper references. what has evolution explained for us. certainly not the beginning of life. lets look what other experts say about ToE.

 

"The theory of evolution by natural selection does not predict that organisms will get more complex. it predicts only that they will get better at surviving and reproducing in the current environment, or at least that they will not get worse. " (John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, The Origins of Life. pg 15)

 

this statement says that changes can occur within a species through natural selection, more complex changes that cause one species to be transformed into another are theoretically unfounded. this is coming from noted evolutionists.

 

why do you think my statement is rediculous? i just stated some holes in the ToE. Do they offend you because it challenges you on what you beleive to be true.

 

 

It matters what books you read because they could be biased sources. Do you want to learn facts or opinions?

 

And I really think you still don't understand that individuals who think evolution could be viable don't "believe" in it. It's not like a religion. And, I for one, don't believe it is absolute truth. I think it is possible and that we will know more with time. However, we will never know everything. Even if somewhere down the road evolution were to be completely disproven or changed, that still wouldn't necessitate a deity or prove there is one.

 

I also don't think that evolution posits to know exactly how life began. Only religion would be silly enough to make a claim such as that without being there (or without evidence).

 

I am glad that we are engaged in this topic, though. I am learning quite a bit on both sides.

 

Freeday, I would challenge you to read just one comprehensive book on evolution that is NOT from a creationist's side. If you have done that, good. If not, I recommend you do. There are some great ones I am sure we could recommend to you. Probably even the book "Evolution for Dummies" might be fine. Just a thought.

[Ouroboros]

i was not trying to be an ass, i am just proving my point. i searched before i wrote the artcle for positive proof of macromutation, and have found none.

I know you weren't, and I'm not trying to be one either.

 

I found this article interesting: http://staff.jccc.net/PDECELL/essays/information.html

 

It mentions that Verne Grant in "Plant Speciation" (1971) found that chromosome numbers increase or often doubles when plants species hybridize. And after the doubling the extra copy can then undergo it's own series of mutations. What's your thought on that?

[freeday]

ToE. A fact or belief[/quote. There are some great ones I am sure we could recommend to you. Probably even the book "Evolution for Dummies" might be fine. Just a thought.

 

are you trying to imply something.

 

 

i was not trying to be an ass, i am just proving my point. i searched before i wrote the artcle for positive proof of macromutation, and have found none.

I know you weren't, and I'm not trying to be one either.

 

I found this article interesting: http://staff.jccc.net/PDECELL/essays/information.html

 

It mentions that Verne Grant in "Plant Speciation" (1971) found that chromosome numbers increase or often doubles when plants species hybridize. And after the doubling the extra copy can then undergo it's own series of mutations. What's your thought on that?

 

noted, will read up on it. have to go for today.

[crazy-tiger]

" evolutionist fail to show the plausibility of macromutations." L. J. Gibson

Geoscience Research Institute origins 1992.

Taken from an institute which is dedicted to showing scientific evidence for biblical origins... Biased beyond belief.

"After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Professes Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

A quote from a book... the author just happens to be a lawyer and a creationist... How biased would this guy be? Well, he admitted to setting out in that book to disprove Evolution...

"Although he [Goldschmidt] recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in populations (microevolution) [changes within species], he believed they did not lead to speciation. Between true species he saw 'bridgeless gaps' that could only be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in 'hopeful monsters.' " —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)

Another creationist... You got any quotes from "evolutionists"? Preferably Darminian...)

"[Mutations are] merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. . they modify what pre-exists. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." —*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pp. 8788.

Yay... an evolutionist... Oh, wait... this is quote-mined.

See, Pierre was a firm believer in Lamarkian Evolution... which posits that characteristics LEARNED by one animal will be passed down to it's offspring... and that this is how evolution happens. If you're going to use this guy, then you must obviously agree with his belief... (besides, modification of pre-existing organisms IS evolution...)

"Variable mutations with the major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutations individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event." —*D. Erwin, and *J. Valentine, " `Hopeful Monsters,' Transposons, and Metazoan Radiation," in Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 81, 1984, p. 5482.

The rest of the quote, from the exact same sourse, goes on to explain how viral assault on a colony can indeed produce these "hopeful monsters" En-Masse via genetic transfer...

And before you say it can't happen, that genetic transfer is impossible, try looking up the ponyfish... it's PROVEN to transfer genetic information between itself and the bacteria that it's in a symbiotic relationship with.

 

In other words, yet another quote-mined attempt at lying...

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)

What do you know... another quote ripped from it's context and slapped here to show people doubt evolution...

 

You do know that later in the article they explain why the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise. (but you won't find that out at the pro-creationist page you got these from... which, by the way, I found during my little search. Next time, don't just copy and paste...)

“I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.” Lynn Margulis, as quoted by Charles Mann, “Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother,” Science, Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, p. 379

Sweet! A proponent of the Gaia Theory...

Someone who doesn't even believe in gradual changes... just sudden ones. In other words, someone opposed to Darwinian Evolution... again.

i was not trying to be an ass, i am just proving my point. i searched before i wrote the artcle for positive proof of macromutation, and have found none.

Uh-huh...

oh yeah, most of the qoutes in the article are by evolutionist, no creationists making silly squakings.

May I be the first to say... BULLSHIT!

 

3 from Creationists, 2 from people opposed to Darwinian evolution, (one of whom supports a theory that was disproven before Darwin was born!) and 2 quote-mined evolutionists who explained away the problems the quotes show later in the same damned articles...

 

 

You er, want to try again on that last statement?

 

 

 

:edited for spelling... sheesh:

[scitsofreaky]

what does it matter? i learned something from them, did i tell a lie in the above article. i stated facts with proper references.

What, are you ashamed of what books you read? I am curious because you are not citing the books that you claimed were responsible for your new found knowledge.

what has evolution explained for us.

Much of our understanding of viruses, bacteria and how to treat both are based on evolution.

certainly not the beginning of life.

ToE has no bearing on abiogenesis.

lets look what other experts say about ToE.

Way to avoid, and yet again citing another source that isn't one of the two books (or is this one, you just don't want to admit it?).

why do you think my statement is rediculous? i just stated some holes in the ToE. Do they offend you because it challenges you on what you beleive to be true.

I'm not affended, I think it is rediculous, and rediculous things don't offend me.

[freeday]

i was not trying to be an ass, i am just proving my point. i searched before i wrote the artcle for positive proof of macromutation, and have found none.

I know you weren't, and I'm not trying to be one either.

 

I found this article interesting: http://staff.jccc.net/PDECELL/essays/information.html

 

It mentions that Verne Grant in "Plant Speciation" (1971) found that chromosome numbers increase or often doubles when plants species hybridize. And after the doubling the extra copy can then undergo it's own series of mutations. What's your thought on that?

 

 

All of the plant species that have evolved more than once have done so via a mechanism called "polyploidy." A polyploid species is one that has more than two copies of each of its chromosomes. More than half of all land plants species are polyploid, including wheat, corn and cotton. Few animal species are, one notable exception being salmon

 

Currently it appears that the two new polyploid species are hybridizing with each other. "We're watching evolution take place," says Doug Soltis.

 

The Soltises are interested in how polyploid species evolve and in why polyploidy is an important evolutionary mechanism for plants. "The more we learn about polyploidy, the better we will be able to manipulate it to create more vigorous or larger crop plants," says Doug Soltis.

 

Unlike "normal" evolution, evolution by polyploidy happens quickly and seems to occur with togetherness rather than separation.

http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/instant.html

 

i think this site explained it a little better. this deffinitely gives us something to look at. it does go onto say.

 

"Polyploid animals are far less common than polyploid plants. Professor of Zoology Gary Thorgaard says, however, that polyploidy may have been important in the evolution of lower vertebrates. Fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and chickens all have some polyploid species."

 

so in short it APPEARS that polyploid plants have the ability to change DNA structure to form new species. and possible mammals once had this ability or still do. this is something we should all collaborate on and see whats out there, both evolutionist and creationist points of views. does this prove macromutaion?

 

you call me a fool, but i am much more receptive to critisicm than most are. i actually researched the criticism, not the resources.

[crazy-tiger]

i actually researched the criticism, not the resources.

Just to point out that the only way to know what the resources are saying is to research them... if you only research the critisisms of the resources, you end up with a biased idea of what they say and all too often take on the biases of those doing the critisism... After all, if all you read is stuff by people who set out to poke holes in evolution, then you're going to come away with the impression that evolution is full of holes.

 

Why do you think we ask what you've read to get your information? So we can make fun of it? (well, sometimes... if you used Dr Dino, we're gonna piss ourselves laughing)

We ask so we know whether we're dealing with someone who's gone to the trouble of finding out from the source what people have said, or if we're dealing with someone who's just copy/pasting some biased, often incorrect, very often deliberately false "information" that we've corrected all too many times before.

 

 

I showed you just how wrong all your quotes were... either due to mine-quoting or blatent bias... I showed how you yourself managed to twist a quote until it said something very different to what it originally said...

 

If you want to learn, rather than just bat this back and forth like kids going "I'm right" "No, I'm right" then you'd do well to drop the assumptions you've made and learn from scratch... it's hard, but possible.

[Thurisaz]

...In conclusion, to learn more about ToE i read 2 250pg books in 2wks. I was criticized because of the authors of the books be biased. But i wanted both sides of the story.

 

No you didn't. If you really wanted both sides you'd have grabbed some books written by scientists not cretinists.

All the points you quoted have been hacked to pieces, torn to shreds, burnt to ashes, and their ashes got pissed upon by all of us countless times on this single forum alone. The very act of yours to post that here is a borderline insult and trolling attempt.

 

Repent ye ebil liar before it's too late. What does your "holy book" say about lying again, hmmm?

[Ouroboros]

you call me a fool, but i am much more receptive to critisicm than most are. i actually researched the criticism, not the resources.

What? I didn't call you a fool!

[Asimov]

the above in read, could you provide me a link to this, i read somewhere, that there is only a 3% difference in genetic makeup of a human and an ape. i have a rebuttle to this, but i would like to read the article first.

 

http://www.cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Gibbons_98.html

 

There is a 98.5% similarity between chimps and humans. Ape is not a scientific term, humans are apes by definition.

 

How can you rebut this? It's a fact. You can't rebut facts.

 

once again you are going backwards and i am starting from the beginning. i tell you what though, has this not been a great refresher course on microbiology.

 

How is it going backwards? We're looking at evidences for Evolution since all you're providing is stupid arguments against.

 

oh good one on pointing out that it only applies organisms who sexually reproduce. , but how did the first sexually producing cell even get here. i will go ahead and answer for you. they don't know.

 

So?

[quicksand]

Freeday, I could have saved you the trouble of your overkill and wordy exposition and subsequent longwinded defense of your argument (assertions really, nothing more).

 

Brass Tacks. Falsification of the ToE does not necessitate that Creationism is true.

[Antlerman]

i am just here to make you think and question things, just as you have done to me. you questioned me on several things, i went and studied the bible. to where i feel more confident in it now that ever before. if you feel that strongly about ToE, you should do the same.

 

oh yeah, most of the qoutes in the article are by evolutionist, no creationists making silly squakings.

I also feel strongly about the credibility about the theory of gravity, but see no reason to question an established theory, because someone coming from a religious faith, or some fringe scientists are making squakings about how unfair their views aren't given credence by the scientic community.

 

Here's the point: There is no scientific evidence that overturns this highly established theory. If these things were valid, do you think scientists would reject it? Most scientists love anything that challenges ideas, because its new data! New data is exciting! You don't think that if some scientist could actually find evidence of an external super-being, he wouldn't give his left nut, his wife, and his kids to be able to discover that!? My god, if he came up with a discovery that could be corroborated through the scientific method, he would win the Nobel peace price for life!!! Why would they want to not discover that? It makes no sense, if you are trying to ascibe personal motives behind scientifc theories.

 

What you really have in the ID folks is not a theory, but only a criticism of a theory. Everything you are referencing are things that came of this community that was born out of creationsim, that was born out of reactionsims to the ToE. They have had there shot at the world of scientific examination, have failed along with many others, but refuse to go quitely away, no... they run to the public like you for support!!! That is not science. That is politics.

 

Again, so why is the ToE so important for me to not accept coming out of the world-wide community of science? Why? Please answer this question for me. Why does this theory, over Gravity, over Black Holes, over any other scientific theory, so damned important to question???

 

Most religious people have no problem with the ToE, or Gravity, or other. Their faith doesn't seem dependent on it? Why do you think it is important for me to reject this one theory from scientists? That's first, then secondly, why should I question the method in this case being challenged by outsiders? Because it "feels" wrong?

 

(Read this, and you'll see how absurd at this point this whole question is to me: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 )

[Caretaker]

Irreducible Complexity is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to figure certain things out.

[Dhampir]

If evolution is ever going to be disproven, it will be science that does so, not the rantings of a bunch of uneducated not jobs whose sole agenda is to find information that contradicts it, and ignoring the evidence in support of it. So go ahead, put your 2 books down, stop worrying about the difference between micro and macroevolution, and forget trying to have as much as the average lay-person's understanding on this subject, because you will never be instrumental in the downfall of evolution. Ever.

[thunderbolt]

i am just here to make you think and question things, just as you have done to me. you questioned me on several things, i went and studied the bible. to where i feel more confident in it now that ever before. if you feel that strongly about ToE, you should do the same.

And that's your problem. Most of us here aren’t ex-C's because evolution is either true OR false. We really don't have to have an opinion about it to realize that your Bible, Savior and the stories it contains is fiction. We reject the Bible (and it's "science") because we can conclude from the evidence that it is not plausible and a bunch of hooey.

Why is it that you theists assume that we NEED to believe in evolution to reject your religion?

[quicksand]

Why is it that you theists assume that we NEED to believe in evolution to reject your religion?

Excellent, pinpointed question there. Any flavor creationsist care to answer this? I'd really love to hear the answer.

 

Brass tacks baby, brass tacks.

[freeday]

you call me a fool, but i am much more receptive to critisicm than most are. i actually researched the criticism, not the resources.

What? I didn't call you a fool!

 

this was not in refference to you.

 

back to the topic we were discussing. in refference to the polyploid. now this is based on human genetics. i never took zoology in college.

 

as related to the human body. polyploidy is a drasic upset in chromosome number resulting in an entire extra set, this forms a diploid, rather than a haploid gamete. most human polyploids die as embryos or fetuses, but occasionally an infant survives for a few days, with defects in nearly all organs.

[Ouroboros]

i am just here to make you think and question things, just as you have done to me. you questioned me on several things, i went and studied the bible. to where i feel more confident in it now that ever before. if you feel that strongly about ToE, you should do the same.

And that's your problem. Most of us here aren’t ex-C's because evolution is either true OR false. We really don't have to have an opinion about it to realize that your Bible, Savior and the stories it contains is fiction. We reject the Bible (and it's "science") because we can conclude from the evidence that it is not plausible and a bunch of hooey.

Why is it that you theists assume that we NEED to believe in evolution to reject your religion?

X-ACTLY!

 

If ToE is 100% disproven, then I'm still not going to be Christian. I'm just going to find another reasonable explanation, or just skip it all together.

 

Also when 99% is wrong in the Bible, and 1% is wrong in Evolution, I think I rather lean towards thinking that there's more substantiation behind Evolution than Christianity.

 

But overall, I didn't deconvert because Evolution made sense. I didn't know much about Evolution until a few years ago, and I still don't know much. I'm learning now, after I became an apostate. So I'm an apostate because the Bible and Christianity did not make sense, but now as an apostate I can see Evolution does make sense, even if there are holes in the theory.

 

 

 

you call me a fool, but i am much more receptive to critisicm than most are. i actually researched the criticism, not the resources.

What? I didn't call you a fool!

 

this was not in refference to you.

Thanks.

 

back to the topic we were discussing. in refference to the polyploid. now this is based on human genetics. i never took zoology in college.

 

as related to the human body. polyploidy is a drasic upset in chromosome number resulting in an entire extra set, this forms a diploid, rather than a haploid gamete. most human polyploids die as embryos or fetuses, but occasionally an infant survives for a few days, with defects in nearly all organs.

This is an area that I'm not so very good at, but you might be right. But honestly there are fully functional human beings that have more chromosomes than the rest of us. Like the genetic disorder "triple X syndrome". I heard it on the radio once, and they said the 47,XXX can have normal children, and I think there is a chance the kids could get the triple X too. First recorded case was in 1959.

 

And what about the baby that was born with three arms recently? Was that just a change in the "number of arms" gene, or could it be an additional arm gene in his DNA?

 

I'm asking you the questions, because I think you've studied this subject more than me.

[quicksand]

Irreducible Complexity is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to figure certain things out.

Creationism, ironically invokes the question of the complexity of the creator, since the creator is assumed to be more complex than its creation. That is not irreducible and only leads to a rabbit-hole of of infinite regression.

 

When does the leap-frogging end?

[Ouroboros]

Irreducible Complexity is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to figure certain things out.

Creationism, ironically invokes the question of the complexity of the creator, since the creator is assumed to be more complex than its creation. That is not irreducible and only leads to a rabbit-hole of of infinite regression.

 

When does the leap-frogging end?

Very true. God is also Irreducible and Infinitely Complex by definition.

[quicksand]

Irreducible Complexity is just an excuse for people who are too lazy to figure certain things out.

Creationism, ironically invokes the question of the complexity of the creator, since the creator is assumed to be more complex than its creation. That is not irreducible and only leads to a rabbit-hole of of infinite regression.

 

When does the leap-frogging end?

Very true. God is also Irreducible and Infinitely Complex by definition.

Therefore unintelligible (or, incomprehensible per the Athanasian Creed).

[Antlerman]

If evolution is ever going to be disproven, it will be science that does so, not the rantings of a bunch of uneducated not jobs whose sole agenda is to find information that contradicts it, and ignoring the evidence in support of it. So go ahead, put your 2 books down, stop worrying about the difference between micro and macroevolution, and forget trying to have as much as the average lay-person's understanding on this subject, because you will never be instrumental in the downfall of evolution. Ever.

Amen!! The point I am making. Amazing, simply amazing how non-scientist were able to see something that the trained and educated specialists ALL missed!! It's got to be the biggest joke of the modern age. How will history record this?

[Antlerman]

Freeday, I do hope you address the more basic issue of science doing science and religion doing religion, but in the mean time I wish to answer your question in the topic title: "ToE. A Fact or Belief?"

 

Answer: Neither

 

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a theoretical model describing the processes of how the factual processes of evolution have shaped the origins of species. You can't call a Theory a fact, because it is not static. New information comes along all the time that modifies it (so far, none has come out of the ID churches that has offered anything of value to the subject ). It is not a finished theory, but what it now says so far has yet to be discredited to the point of overturning it. There are however parts that have been changed due to new information. But don't hold your breath for the totality of it being abandoned any time soon (if your hoping for some reason it will be).

 

Now, is science a Belief? No. Science is based on verifiable evidence. Big B, little b. Big B, Belief is a religious faith, believing without evidence ("faith is the substance of things not seen, the evidence of things hoped for", [see: God's Word]). Little b belief is "any cognitive content held as true." I believe George Bush is President. So yes, I believe that scientists know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to something the width and breadth of the Theory of Evolution, but no it a not a Belief based on religious faith, like believing Jesus walked on water.

 

Question, if you distrust the ability of the global community of scientists from multiple fields of science, when they all acknowledge the vailid ot the ToE, do you distrust everything else they have to say, or just this one thing? Just this one thing that challenges your emotional beliefs? I don't know, maybe you are a total cynic and think scientists are just a bunch of idiots? If so, I'm sorry I can't agree with you.

 

Next question: What qualifies the ID folks for continued consideration after having failed passing muster in the scientific community? Emotional appeal??

 

The validity of the Theory of Evolution is not determined by religious debate. Edit: Nor is it determined by going to the masses to garner support for it through popular appeal!! The ideas of the ID folks have already been looked at and dealt with, along with a long list of other pseudo-scientific ideas. Their ideas are dead scientifically.

[Thurisaz]

Why is it that you theists assume that we NEED to believe in evolution to reject your religion?

 

Eh, make that moronmonotheists, will you?

 

That said, come on, you know the answer... the wonders brainwashing can do...

[freeday]

Freeday, I do hope you address the more basic issue of science doing science and religion doing religion, but in the mean time I wish to answer your question in the topic title: "ToE. A Fact or Belief?"

 

Answer: Neither

 

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a theoretical model describing the processes of how the factual processes of evolution have shaped the origins of species. You can't call a Theory a fact, because it is not static. New information comes along all the time that modifies it (so far, none has come out of the ID churches that has offered anything of value to the subject ). It is not a finished theory, but what it now says so far has yet to be discredited to the point of overturning it. There are however parts that have been changed due to new information. But don't hold your breath for the totality of it being abandoned any time soon (if your hoping for some reason it will be).

 

Now, is science a Belief? No. Science is based on verifiable evidence. Big B, little b. Big B, Belief is a religious faith, believing without evidence ("faith is the substance of things not seen, the evidence of things hoped for", [see: God's Word]). Little b belief is "any cognitive content held as true." I believe George Bush is President. So yes, I believe that scientists know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to something the width and breadth of the Theory of Evolution, but no it a not a Belief based on religious faith, like believing Jesus walked on water.

 

Question, if you distrust the ability of the global community of scientists from multiple fields of science, when they all acknowledge the vailid ot the ToE, do you distrust everything else they have to say, or just this one thing? Just this one thing that challenges your emotional beliefs? I don't know, maybe you are a total cynic and think scientists are just a bunch of idiots? If so, I'm sorry I can't agree with you.

 

Next question: What qualifies the ID folks for continued consideration after having failed passing muster in the scientific community? Emotional appeal??

 

The validity of the Theory of Evolution is not determined by religious debate. Edit: Nor is it determined by going to the masses to garner support for it through popular appeal!! The ideas of the ID folks have already been looked at and dealt with, along with a long list of other pseudo-scientific ideas. Their ideas are dead scientifically.

 

i think everyone took me wrong, i have done a lot of research and reading on this subject. both apologetic and evolutionist. was it wrong of me to post critisism of the theory? i was not trying to make anyone mad. i have heard a lot of talk about discrediting educated individuals and thier motives. i think the information can be swayed either way depending on what the persons opinion is. i made a very good point to this in the discussion about the fossils me and you had.

 

take the point asimov made. fact, us and chimps have a very similiar genetic make-up (and yes, i found that on one of the many evolutionist websites). from an evolutionist standpoint, the similarities lend credit towards ToE. from an apologetic standpoint. maybe God found that the same genes could be used in a variety of mammals. this is my whole point. it is based on the opinions of the scientist.

 

yes i have an oppinion. but in my research, i have looked up both sides of the story. i think that is more than fair. the only thing i would like to research more is the homids.

 

from me personally, i don't find evolution to be the source. how many of you have taken microbiology and extensive human A/P. if you have, then the short article on IC, you would know it did not do it justice. this is what formed my opinions. but that is just my opinion, it proves nothing. (and please don't take this as if i am saying :if you didn't take the above courses you are stupid for believing in ToE), but if you have taken it, didn't you find it totally fascinating the complexities of how it works, all just the size of about 1/1000's of the period at the end of the sentence. i am one of those people that look at examples of stuff like this, and say it works to perfectly for there not to be a designer. its that southern baptist raising. but funny enough, i really didn't start going to church untill i was in my 20's. my parents never took me to church. i can only recall once that i know of. when i was a baby, i was christened (sp). and the even funnier thing is. i don't believe in doing that as babies. lol

 

and hans, i will get back to you on the chromosome thing, i recover open heart patients. pretty much forgot all of the genetic disorders mentioned above.