Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?

[coolsmile]

Yeah, you see they are talking about alchemy which was an absurd mystical pseudo science. Life has to come from "non-life." If life was always there then there would be no point to creation. Judeo-Christian belief is that man was created from dust... FROM DUST! That isn't any different than alchemical science thinking that rotten meat produced maggots.

There is no alchemy in that, you just can't read...
It's not possible to take a rock and turn it into a carbon-based organism. You cannot take inorganic matter and create organic matter. It's impossible...
If it wasn't, then how was dna created, only carbon-based organisms have this... plus, dna cannot be added to, so you cannot have a 46-chromosome organism become a 48-chromosome organism and vice versa.

Wait, is that supposed to refute evolution? Because DNA is so complex it couldn't come about without some sort of creator? Give me a freaking break, man.

No, it's saying that it's so complex that no human can fully understand and interperet DNA, it would take something way more intelligent being (GOD) to create something so elaborate. Give me a freaking break, man.

The first "fact" in this is false. Just watch the video I posted to see how misinformed this paragraph is. See, science is an ever changing thing and there is no telling how old this information is seeing as there aren't any sources listed. The chimpanzee genome was only mapped a few years back so now we can further understand how exactly we relate to them.
We humans are unique, however, does it hurt your pride that much to think that we are actually related to the animal kingdom? That we aren't so uber special and above everything?
For people of faith to submit to god and degrade themselves in such a way as to call themselves "dust before him," they sure seem to have a god-like complex about how they think they can control everything like this earth was made for them exclusively. It makes me sick.

I really could post more about how that link you (coolsmile) presented to us has very little to do with evolution. Thermodynamics? Pfft... :crazy:

It's not necessairly false, there are still scientists that use old data to take the dumb people who beleive evolution to beleive in it. I mean come on, somebody earlier posted some junk on horses evolving, that has been proved wrong OVER 50 YEARS AGO. Don't give me junk about this...
This has nothing to do with pride, it has to do with truth.
Thermodynamics has a lot to do with evoultion, and the creation of the universe. The second law states (loosly translated) that explosions cause degeneration, which means nothing could've formed out of the big bang. Also this is a law not a theory. How bout next time put 2 and 2 together :yesnod:

I know, we have 46 and they have 48. That is 23 human pairs and 24 chimpanzee pairs.

Same here...

 

[Squall7]

There is no alchemy in that, you just can't read...
It's not possible to take a rock and turn it into a carbon-based organism. You cannot take inorganic matter and create organic matter. It's impossible...

It's not impossible, it's just that we haven't discovered something like that in our lifespan. What would you define as "organic"? Would it not be concievable that it's the combination of many factors that led to the first basis of a form of DNA? Just because we have different catagories for "organic" and "non-organic" doesn't mean that those catagories are static, they're just a way of catagorising, and much like any other human interpretation, it may not be that simple. Also, the use of "rock" concocts images of very solid matterials. What about water, or is needing water just a bad habit we picked up in the (so called) 6000 years we've been on this planet? Look at the barriers between species for example - we have main general families, species and sub-species. Some in the sub-species look very different and have very different behaviours and strengths. In the end, "species" is just a way for us to catagorise animals, and those catagories are defined by humans to help us understand animals better (and I include homo-sapien in that statement). Likewise, the difference between life and non-life may be catagorised such that it impedes our understanding of it. Life is meant to do these things:

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Heck, there's a whole section on how this definition is flawed - even though most of us still think of those as defining "life". Interestingly it has this to say:

Origin of life
Main article: Origin of life

Microbial mats around the Grand Prismatic Spring of Yellowstone National ParkAlthough it cannot be pinpointed exactly, evidence suggests that life on Earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years [4].

There is no truly "standard" model for the origin of life, but most currently accepted scientific models [5] build in one way or another on the following discoveries, which are listed roughly in order of postulated emergence:

Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of the basic small molecules of life. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment.
Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of a cell membrane.
Procedures for producing random RNA molecules can produce ribozymes, which are able to produce more of themselves under very specific conditions.
There are many different hypotheses regarding the path that might have been taken from simple organic molecules to protocells and metabolism. Many models fall into the "genes-first" category or the "metabolism-first" category, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that do not fit into either of these categories,[6] Despite the length of scientist's current speculations, the origin of life remains as one of science's greatest mysteries.

Thus science does not "know" how life started and "evolution" is not meant to explain as such (which kinda goes with my non-scientific points, just hypothetical ones).

If it wasn't, then how was dna created, only carbon-based organisms have this... plus, dna cannot be added to, so you cannot have a 46-chromosome organism become a 48-chromosome organism and vice versa.

The DNA strands may have evolved from another form of genetic coding. RNA for example, is completely different, but it's still life.

No, it's saying that it's so complex that no human can fully understand and interperet DNA, it would take something way more intelligent being (GOD) to create something so elaborate. Give me a freaking break, man.

Whose trying to say that a human did create DNA? We can usually only guess at the sorts of environments in which we think life may have first began. It is still very possible that the earliest forms of life (being pretty much non-recognisable at this point in time) happened without any such "creator". In fact, the definition of "life" may not apply to our oldest predecessors (sp?).

It's not necessairly false, there are still scientists that use old data to take the dumb people who beleive evolution to beleive in it. I mean come on, somebody earlier posted some junk on horses evolving, that has been proved wrong OVER 50 YEARS AGO. Don't give me junk about this...
This has nothing to do with pride, it has to do with truth.
Thermodynamics has a lot to do with evoultion, and the creation of the universe. The second law states (loosly translated) that explosions cause degeneration, which means nothing could've formed out of the big bang. Also this is a law not a theory. How bout next time put 2 and 2 together :yesnod:

"Dumb people that believe evolution"? For a start, at least some of us can actually spell believe. Secondly, you assume that scientists deliberately misguide people. The horses wasn't "proved" to be wrong, somebody just shed doubt on the findings. It's pretty much what happens if somebody cannot beat someone else through logic - they attack the opponents credibility. "Ye everything about evolution was faked" - It just won't work without proof outside of Creationalists and Young Earth lot (maybe even Intelligent design lot - I'm not sure if they also believe it). For someone who's so interested in "the truth", you seem to have a lot of emotional investment in your points. If you want to convince us, use unbiased, credible sources and don't get your emotions involved.

You know, I looked up "degeneration" and "big bang" (together), and all I found was the Big Crunch theory being referenced. Either you're trying to confuse everyone or you are on another wavelength. Please try to elaborate on what you mean:

The second law states (loosly translated) that explosions cause degeneration, which means nothing could've formed out of the big bang.

 

[coolsmile]

Originally Posted by coolsmile
There is no alchemy in that, you just can't read...
It's not possible to take a rock and turn it into a carbon-based organism. You cannot take inorganic matter and create organic matter. It's impossible...

It's not impossible, it's just that we haven't discovered something like that in our lifespan. What would you define as "organic"? Would it not be concievable that it's the combination of many factors that led to the first basis of a form of DNA? Just because we have different catagories for "organic" and "non-organic" doesn't mean that those catagories are static, they're just a way of catagorising, and much like any other human interpretation, it may not be that simple. Also, the use of "rock" concocts images of very solid matterials. What about water, or is needing water just a bad habit we picked up in the (so called) 6000 years we've been on this planet? Look at the barriers between species for example - we have main general families, species and sub-species. Some in the sub-species look very different and have very different behaviours and strengths. In the end, "species" is just a way for us to catagorise animals, and those catagories are defined by humans to help us understand animals better (and I include homo-sapien in that statement). Likewise, the difference between life and non-life may be catagorised such that it impedes our understanding of it. Life is meant to do these things:

Ahh, yes, but discovery has nothing to do with it, with science, it's all about evidence. Also, I'm talking about a molecule w/ only right protiens (or left, I forgot). You can not make right out of left and vice versa...

Thus science does not "know" how life started and "evolution" is not meant to explain as such (which kinda goes with my non-scientific points, just hypothetical ones).

Yes, exactly, but unfortuately, it's not taught that way in school. It's specifically designed to mix real scientific evidence from micro evoulution and mixed with macro evolution (no scientific facts/evidence) to fool kids into beleiving it...

The DNA strands may have evolved from another form of genetic coding. RNA for example, is completely different, but it's still life.

Evolve from what? (Evolve is not a very wise word to use because it assumes too much)

"Dumb people that believe evolution"? For a start, at least some of us can actually spell believe. Secondly, you assume that scientists deliberately misguide people. The horses wasn't "proved" to be wrong, somebody just shed doubt on the findings. It's pretty much what happens if somebody cannot beat someone else through logic - they attack the opponents credibility. "Ye everything about evolution was faked" - It just won't work without proof outside of Creationalists and Young Earth lot (maybe even Intelligent design lot - I'm not sure if they also believe it). For someone who's so interested in "the truth", you seem to have a lot of emotional investment in your points. If you want to convince us, use unbiased, credible sources and don't get your emotions involved.

I guess I didn't word it correctly :hand:
First, the dumb people are the ones who beleive what they are told and don't introduce some argument. That is what science is about, trying to find problems, and fixing them. I never said evoultion was faked. I said parts of it were faked. Micro evolution exists, yet macro doesn't even have a micron of evidence.

Originally Posted by coolsmile
There is no alchemy in that, you just can't read...
It's not possible to take a rock and turn it into a carbon-based organism. You cannot take inorganic matter and create organic matter. It's impossible...

It's not impossible, it's just that we haven't discovered something like that in our lifespan. What would you define as "organic"? Would it not be concievable that it's the combination of many factors that led to the first basis of a form of DNA? Just because we have different catagories for "organic" and "non-organic" doesn't mean that those catagories are static, they're just a way of catagorising, and much like any other human interpretation, it may not be that simple. Also, the use of "rock" concocts images of very solid matterials. What about water, or is needing water just a bad habit we picked up in the (so called) 6000 years we've been on this planet? Look at the barriers between species for example - we have main general families, species and sub-species. Some in the sub-species look very different and have very different behaviours and strengths. In the end, "species" is just a way for us to catagorise animals, and those catagories are defined by humans to help us understand animals better (and I include homo-sapien in that statement). Likewise, the difference between life and non-life may be catagorised such that it impedes our understanding of it. Life is meant to do these things:

Ahh, yes, but discovery has nothing to do with it, with science, it's all about evidence. Also, I'm talking about a molecule w/ only right protiens (or left, I forgot). You can not make right out of left and vice versa...

Thus science does not "know" how life started and "evolution" is not meant to explain as such (which kinda goes with my non-scientific points, just hypothetical ones).

Yes, exactly, but unfortuately, it's not taught that way in school. It's specifically designed to mix real scientific evidence from micro evoulution and mixed with macro evolution (no scientific facts/evidence) to fool kids into beleiving it...

The DNA strands may have evolved from another form of genetic coding. RNA for example, is completely different, but it's still life.

Evolve from what? (Evolve is not a very wise word to use because it assumes too much)

If you want to convince us, use unbiased, credible sources and don't get your emotions involved.

Yes, because you have given me so many credible resources, I mean look at those amazing sources: Wikipedia is not a credible source! Sources can be outdated also...
Emotions have nothing to do with it. Right now, I'm laughing at what you posted because all it shows me how little you understand. There is no such thing as an unbiased source because all humans are bias. They always have one side. You telling me to find an ubiased source is like me telling you to look for support for evoultion on a creationist source. You constantly try to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about and you know, people may beleive it, but you can be like all the others and trick people into beleiving things like this...

--Have a nice day too, I'm tired and it's 10:23 so I would love to chat tomorrow. Peace out :cornut:

Oh, and JESUS LOVES YOU :lol:
Suprise isn't it

 

[Hochiminh]

To Thread Poster:

I completely disagree. How would we explain the new species that differ from us today? Us (humans) have about 99.99% the makeup of an ape, which would make an obvious case that we evolved from them. But, on the other hand, I do believe that "something" had to have been created by someone (God) and I think all he created was the universe. I can't explain why life evolved from simply creating the universe; maybe some form of energy created the first microorganisms, in which then evolved life. Of course, this is a theory. So, my thinking is creation of a living cell to the evolution of life. I guess a combination of both. I do believe in God because something created us (a living thing), but in turn mutations and adaptations to certain environments caused evolution. And that is my reasoning behind why there is evolution-adaptations to an environment. Depending on the environment, the climate can alter mutations in living organisms. As for creation, I don't believe in Adam and Eve being our first humans and Noah's Ark bringing our animals into the world. But I believe in God and heaven. Just my opinion...

 

[WiiZero]

Don't have time to read they told me not to

 

[kitkat_bar]

This thread is still going???? :shocked:

 

[Squall7]

Ahh, yes, but discovery has nothing to do with it, with science, it's all about evidence. Also, I'm talking about a molecule w/ only right protiens (or left, I forgot). You can not make right out of left and vice versa...

The problem is, is that you seperate science as a law from science as a theory. If a theory is created based on science, is it not a scientific theory? Likewise, if you based a theory on religion, would it not be a religous theory?

Yes, exactly, but unfortuately, it's not taught that way in school.

I'd have to disagree there. I learnt about evolution in school, and I understand know it isn't meant to explain the beginings of life.

Origin of Life

It may seem strange that the question of the ultimate origin of life on earth was not discussed at the beginning of this tutorial. It was an intended omission. The focus has been on the processes by which living things change through time, not on how life first came about. These are separate issues. A consideration of ultimate origins bridges into the realm of religion for many people. Regardless of whether you believe that life began spontaneously as a result of natural processes or was due to divine intervention, it is sobering to realize that science is close to being able to create life out of non-living substances. In fact, most of the initial steps have already been taken. The video linked below shows just how close we are to creating living organisms.

Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm(notice the .edu that means it's part of a academic institution).

It's specifically designed to mix real scientific evidence from micro evoulution and mixed with macro evolution (no scientific facts/evidence) to fool kids into beleiving it...

Just fake ones then? All I've seen is supposed evidence of the people "faking" their evidence for evoution. If you have other more conclusive evidence of these fakings, then please present them...

Evolve from what? (Evolve is not a very wise word to use because it assumes too much)

What I was saying, is perhaps there was another prevalent form of genetic encoding before DNA. And yes, evolution would be suited to that, if something went from another form of encoding to DNA, it would be concievable that it was done through a process of evolution (in a form). (oh, and evolution wouldn't "Assume too much", it's just that it has specific connotations and denotations to it, that you might not agree with.)

First, the dumb people are the ones who beleive what they are told and don't introduce some argument.

Get this: Kids believe what they're told, and some of them actually grow up to practice it. Heck, some may even become quite high up in the church...

That is what science is about, trying to find problems, and fixing them.

Since when has science been about "finding problems"? It's about discovery and explanation. If it really was about finding problems, and solving them, then the entire scientific community would have proved that Bush lacks the intelligence to be president.

I never said evoultion was faked. I said parts of it were faked.

So you cherry pick the evidence that doesn't go against religion, and you call the rest "Fake"? I would really love to know how you think that some of the evolutionist evidence is "faked".

Micro evolution exists, yet macro doesn't even have a micron of evidence.

Because you cherry pick. See my comment above.
You do realise that you corrected "believe" on the quote and not on the original post don't you?

Yes, because you have given me so many credible resources, I mean look at those amazing sources: Wikipedia is not a credible source!

Wikipedia is accessible and provides links to where information is found. Whilst it can be user changed, they do have the ability to recover earlier versions. Likwise, wikipedia at least tells you when the information on the page is in dispute. The "credible" Sources you post are from a creationist standpoint that have just as little scientific backing as your own arguements.

Sources can be outdated also...

Yes, like the water canopy theory...

Emotions have nothing to do with it.

Then why do you invest so much emotional interest in "proving" evolution is false. Surely it you had proper evidence, you'd be able to show your workings and explain things calmly, like any scientist would.

Right now, I'm laughing at what you posted because all it shows me how little you understand.

He who laughs last, thinks the slowest...

There is no such thing as an unbiased source because all humans are bias.

There is such a thing as unbiased sources, it's called keeping your objectivity. I can understand how you would think that all sources are biased though...

They always have one side.

No, it's called having an agenda, and sometimes, just sensationist mainstream would big up or downplay articles accordingly. However, this doesn't happen all the time...

You telling me to find an ubiased source is like me telling you to look for support for evoultion on a creationist source.

Because everyone is supposedly "duped"? Well, count up how many people from other religions, that are supposedly "duped" (according to Christianity - even more so when you get into denominations). Also, if other sources are biased, then you've just agreed that yours are biased too. Considering some other sources actually have believable evidence, your sources only go the politicians route - discredit the person to discredit their work.

You constantly try to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about and you know, people may beleive it, but you can be like all the others and trick people into beleiving things like this...

"Constantly"? Post something that people can agree on if you don't want to anyone to dispute you. I do not trick people into believing things, I leave that to you. I provide evidence to support the contrary to what you're saying, because there is evidence you left out in your biased arguement (like the criticisms of your perspective).

Oh, and JESUS LOVES YOU :lol:
Suprise isn't it

And Darwin loves you, just like all the other little monkeys...

 

[coolsmile]

I'm too lazy to reply to what you've said right now but:

Us (humans) have about 99.99% the makeup of an ape

Simply Put, No, we don't...
Scientists are finding that we are less and elss like apes.

Then why do you invest so much emotional interest in "proving" evolution is false. Surely it you had proper evidence, you'd be able to show your workings and explain things calmly, like any scientist would.

I could say the same thing about you defending evolution. My interest lies in truth...

So you cherry pick the evidence that doesn't go against religion, and you call the rest "Fake"? I would really love to know how you think that some of the evolutionist evidence is "faked".

When did I ever do that, I'm just telling it how it is...

And Darwin loves you, just like all the other little monkeys...

He could never love me because he never knew me...
Jesus on the other hand does, did and will
In fact, he never pushed evoultion on people like most people like you...

 

[Squall7]

I could say the same thing about you defending evolution. My interest lies in truth...

You see, that's the point. I never claimed to be objective, however, I do provide a counterpoint to your theories. Also, note that to challenge something, you need to have a objective grasp of what it is you're refuting. I on the other hand, have consistently pulled out evidence from various sources (if you refute that, go back and count up the amount of non-wikipedia sources I've used).

When did I ever do that, I'm just telling it how it is...

Wrong. You're telling it how you think it is. There's a difference.

He could never love me because he never knew me...
Jesus on the other hand does, did and will
In fact, he never pushed evoultion on people like most people like you...

Most people like you? If you were to defend your "faith" against someone, would you be pushing down on someone else? No. There's a difference between attack and defense.

Also, if it wasn't really clear, he didn't push evolution on people because he was deceased by around 1800 years before evolutionary theory was created.

Interesting website with a lot of points: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Beware though. It paints a bleak picture for Creationalists - but one that is well informed and well versed in referencing.

 

[n3gative3]

It seems to me that Squall7 is the only one out of the two of you citing sources for some of the points he makes. He is also the one that is actually being objective.

 

[coolsmile]

You see, that's the point. I never claimed to be objective, however, I do provide a counterpoint to your theories.[/qoute]
And I provide counterpoints to those counterpoints ^_^

Also, note that to challenge something, you need to have a objective grasp of what it is you're refuting.

I don't think I do, since you don't seem to have a specific objective grasp either

I on the other hand, have consistently pulled out evidence from various sources (if you refute that, go back and count up the amount of non-wikipedia sources I've used).

Why would I prove myself wrong...
You are the one who has to convince me

Most people like you? If you were to defend your "faith" against someone, would you be pushing down on someone else? No. There's a difference between attack and defense.

Yet attack and defense are realitive to the person giving it and the person receiving it...

Also, if it wasn't really clear, he didn't push evolution on people because he was deceased by around 1800 years before evolutionary theory was created.

It's only clear because they haven't seen the other side...

Interesting website with a lot of points: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Beware though. It paints a bleak picture for Creationalists - but one that is well informed and well versed in referencing.

Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy

That's not even an evolutionist claim and it's not even right. It's social darwinism. And my teachers (athiests) told me this.

Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.

Um, that isn't a creationist view. They mis-state it. Evolution can't define the difference from right and wrong.

I would like to argue more on that site but my battery is running low :mad2:
I'm sorry but that website makes so many false claims...

 

[Squall7]

And I provide counterpoints to those counterpoints ^_^

You provide judgement. Such things as

First, the dumb people are the ones who beleive what they are told and don't introduce some argument.

I don't think I do, since you don't seem to have a specific objective grasp either

That's really down to how you interpret me. However, I have provided backing from a wide variety of sources.

Why would I prove myself wrong...
You are the one who has to convince me

Since when is it my objective to "convince" you of anything. You're the person making the claim that evolution (or parts thereof) are incorrect. You're the one who has to convince us.

Yet attack and defense are realitive to the person giving it and the person receiving it...

As stated above, you're the one claiming evolution (or parts thereof) are incorrect. If I had started by saying how inaccurate and false the bible is, then I would be the one attacking. However, this is not currently the case in this discussion.

It's only clear because they haven't seen the other side...

"Other side"? You mean evolution? I wonder how evolution would have effected the contents of the bible had it been discovered 1800 years earlier...

That's not even an evolutionist claim and it's not even right. It's social darwinism. And my teachers (athiests) told me this.

It would be, if not for the "the eternal will that dominates this universe" bit in the quote. That points more towards a reference to a Divine creator, rather than a social Darwinist. Aethiest teachers can get things wrong, just as much as anyone else. No human is infallible. However, it doesn't mean they cannot speak the truth.

Um, that isn't a creationist view. They mis-state it. Evolution can't define the difference from right and wrong.

The website provides many opposing theories. One Catholic may have a different interpretation and therefore a different objection than another Catholic. Doesn't mean that one is not a Catholic. Creationists are only united in the debate against evolution, not united in exactly what they constitute a problem for evolution.

I would like to argue more on that site but my battery is running low :mad2:
I'm sorry but that website makes so many false claims...

Or rather, one's you haven't heard before. Read in each one, they provide sources for each claim.

It's 3.03 in the morning, so I'll call it a night.

 

[Hochiminh]

A very interesting article about generalists vs. specialists, and the basis of why evolution exists in both types:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v80/n6/full/6883290a.html

Even more interesting is how to determine the speed of evolution, and that it is increasing more and more every day:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070129-13033300-bc-us-evolution.xml

I also read an article of something I never knew, that humans are exempt from natural selection because only a third of embryos will grow up and actually reproduce. Other living things will reproduce well more than half the embryos they reproduce:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Evolution.html

Okay, now some almighty being had to have created the universe (read middle of article):

http://www.missionislam.com/discover/who_created.htm

I especially agree with gravity being the reason that the universe is unified; if there was to much or to little, Earth and solar systems wouldn't exist, so someone had to be perfect to create such a universe, which discounts that the universe created itself...

Anyway, I believe in both creation (of the universe) and evolution (of species, both micro and macro). Anyway, why debate this when we may NEVER know the truth.

 

[Squall7]

A very interesting article about generalists vs. specialists, and the basis of why evolution exists in both types:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v80/n6/full/6883290a.html

Even more interesting is how to determine the speed of evolution, and that it is increasing more and more every day:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070129-13033300-bc-us-evolution.xml

I also read an article of something I never knew, that humans are exempt from natural selection because only a third of embryos will grow up and actually reproduce. Other living things will reproduce well more than half the embryos they reproduce:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Evolution.html

Okay, now some almighty being had to have created the universe (read middle of article):

http://www.missionislam.com/discover/who_created.htm

I take it you are Muslim then? It's quite refreshing to actively hear a muslim perspective on this issue. Also, I think perhaps the fall in the ability to reproduce may be a natural trigger due to a fairly high population density. Once we have a steady population (with enough food/supplies to actually go around), then we may see more natural selection in our species. In the end, I think it's our consumer society which is doing a lot of damage to both the environment and thus ourselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070227/sc_afp/scienceenvironmentanimalssexfrogs

I especially agree with gravity being the reason that the universe is unified; if there was to much or to little, Earth and solar systems wouldn't exist, so someone had to be perfect to create such a universe, which discounts that the universe created itself...

If another Earth and solar system happened due to a difference in gravity, then they too could be wondering, why did it happen the way it did? Complexity does not discount nature (in the broadest sense). If we are here, we're here because this planet can support life. Chances are, there's other planets that can support life as well, and there's likely life (in some form) there too. It's possible they're sentient and intelligent enough to be asking "Isn't it strange that, if we weren't in this exact spot, we couldn't have existed. Surely it isn't just coincidence"...

Anyway, I believe in both creation (of the universe) and evolution (of species, both micro and macro). Anyway, why debate this when we may NEVER know the truth.

Agreed on the last part. I believe in a form of the big bang - maybe not as simple as the concept we have today. But very much agreed on the last part (repeated for emphasis).

 

[Hochiminh]

I take it you are Muslim then? It's quite refreshing to actively hear a muslim perspective on this issue. Also, I think perhaps the fall in the ability to reproduce may be a natural trigger due to a fairly high population density. Once we have a steady population (with enough food/supplies to actually go around), then we may see more natural selection in our species. In the end, I think it's our consumer society which is doing a lot of damage to both the environment and thus ourselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070227/sc_afp/scienceenvironmentanimalssexfrogs

Thanks for the reply, Squall. I guess you can say its a Muslim belief, but I am in no way a Muslim. I'm really not religious-I don't go to church. I guess you can say it's the "Ho Chi" religion. j/k

So you are saying that we would have to be an even bigger population (we already have almost 10 billion people in the world.) for natural selection to occur? You bring up an interesting point on our society being damaged by us, so do you think pollution, causing mutations in species, have much to do with the natural selection of species?