Why do people reject evolution?

[thethird0611]

I really hope this thread dies soon. Its everything thats wrong with the Escapist. To many people who want so bad to bash on religion that they go on and on and on.

Im a Psychology major at the moment, senior year, actually doing research. Our theories/hypothesis/laws are the exact same as normal science since we use the scientific method. Now, onto the discussion.

Why do normal Christians (because we all know that you just want to bash them, dont hide it. Which, just so you know, discredits you) reject the theory of evolution? Because they believe in the Old Testament. Now, the old testament is one of the oldest, if not the oldest text we have. We have codex'es from thousands of years ago that mirror our bibles now. There is reliability between the Bible then and the Bible now. That means the Bible has some type of pull in its own right. No, its not the scientific method, but it is another source of evidence. Theologians do more than just read the bible, they make sure it is in its true form.

Now, the Theory of Evolution. Let me say something thats been said before, but you dont get. ITS ONLY A THEORY. ITS NOT 100% TRUE. ITS NOT A LAW... Now that I got that out of the way, lets focus on why its a theory. A theory is a POSSIBLE explanation to a hypothesis, with evidence behind it, but it is not INFALLIBLE. Seriously, the theory of evolution could be 100% wrong, but you dont want to accept that. Yes, it has evidence, thats why personally, I keep my eye on it, and dont reject it. Now, you say we have observed Macro, but we havent observed HUMAN macro. That means its a theory, that means it can be rejected, that means it can be 100% wrong.

Now, im a Christian, I believe in Creationism, but I damn well wont put down the Evolution theory, because it has some evidence, just like the reliability (scientific term here) of the oldest text we have.

Your not a freaking genius, your not smarter than any creationist, you are a discredit to any type of science you want to preach. Science is about proving why the world is, its about information, not getting your jollies off on trying to bash a religion. If you really cared about the theory, you wouldnt try to say "OH IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG, LISTEN TO ME", which is exactly what is going on here (yes it is, you dont care about any information being spread for the better of humanity, you just want to bash Christianity).

For my last sentence. I wont be looking at this thread again or any replies. Ill delete them before I even read them. I wanted to put the ACTUAL truth out there of why both are accepted/rejected (which its stupid to reject either of them, purely because you are always supposed to be open to new information as a scientist). So, thank you, I hope this actually tells you WHY, and I dont care how much you believe in evolution, or what videos over it you have, stop being ignorant and go back to TESTING. Testing is never done.

 

[beniki]

Because evolution reduces the chances of us ever finding a real unicorn

And C'thulu, but that might not be a bad thing.

I think it's mostly because people find sciences boring, and therefore not relevant to their lives. Not as uncommon as you think... I still find people who think that Maths has no bearing on their lives. On the other hand, lots of people go to church every week, and it's part of their routine... therefore they credit religion more.

-snip-

In the absolute knowledge you won't delete this before you read it, just wanted to point out your assertion of 'the ACTUAL truth' is massively ironic. In the same post you declare yourself to be correct, and also that we shouldn't reject any theories. I'm not attacking you for it, but just wanted to point it out so we both can giggle about it.

Nothing quite like vanity

 

[Asita]

Evolution makes the prediction that animal populations can adapt to their environments over time, and that's certainly observable. It also makes the prediction that larger changes can happen, like reptile populations turning into mammals, which we haven't seen happen.

There's no qualitative difference between the two. The 'larger scale changes' you refer to are nothing more than the accumulation of 'small scale changes' over the course of generations. It's like how a meter is nothing more than an accumulation of centimeters.

That said, your phrasing rather strongly implies that you seem to be falling into a very common mental trap, under the presumption that evolution entails horizontal jumps from one class of animals to another existing class of animals, relying to some extent on a bias presented by the familiarity of the two. Go back and time, and yes, mammals branched off from reptiles, but that was a LONG time ago, and at the time the two weren't nearly as distinct as they are today. If you want to look for a missing link between the two, I'd actually reccomend looking at monotremes, who show a distinctive number of bridged traits linking the two (Put simply, there's a reason that they're closer to reptiles on the tree of life). Though truthfully you'd really want to look at their extinct progenitors to get the full picture. But I digress. My point is that you're essentially asking for a scenario that evolution itself doesn't claim, at least not in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

If you say that predictions can take the form of piecing together the past, wouldn't that allow ID and creationism to make predictions, since they are used to "piece together the past"? That in itself isn't a claim that they successfully make predictions, just that they can make predictions.

Depends on the nature of the presumed predictions, doesn't it? Here's the catch 22 that creationism tends to fail on, the predictions have to be accurate. Let me put it this way: One of the older claims from creationists is that fossils are sorted hydrologically (logic being that the supposed Flood sorted them thusly). That is a testible statement which makes a prediction about the results we'd find in examing the fossil record. Ergo, you could say that this statement is a hypothesis. It is also an unequivocably failed hypothesis, as the fossil record stands in stark contrast to the claim, leaving it ill-equipped to piece together past events. By contrast, evolutionary theory does produce accurate predictions, as noted in the link priorly provided.

As per the 'no supernatural' bit...that's a foundational rule of logic in general. One cannot assume that your observations are due to a force that by definition exists outside our means of comprehension. At the risk of seeming snide, invoking the supernatural is quite literally to suggest that we stop searching for answers because one (or more) people suggest that we can't understand it. Cultural bias aside, there is no qualitative difference between "Jimmy is sick because he's possessed by a demon", "Jimmy is sick because God is angry at him", "Jimmy is sick because Ms. Frizzle cast an evil spell on him", and "Jimmy is sick because he's allergic to his best friend Harvey, the 6'3.5" invisible rabbit". The very reason that we've succeeded as well as we have in the world is because we do NOT go around insisting that things fall because some intelligent undetectible force wills them towards the ground, that there's a physical reason for the combustion that powers our engines, and that chemistry is not some mystical magical study, but has predictable results based on how various elements interact with one another. This is not to say that a man cannot be religious, mind you, but that the assumption of the supernatural as the solution to a problem is exceptionally rare and in practice is usually reviled even among the religious due to its equally exceptionally poor track record (see faith healing as a primary form of medicine as a case in point).

Whoa now. First, it's not a foundational rule of logic. It's foundational to science, but not logic. All logic starts with unproven assumptions; science, for example, assumes that the universe will always act in the same way under the same circumstances. Secondly, I'm not assuming that the observations are necessarily caused by a force that is outside our means of comprehension.

Actually, you are. That's the very definition of supernatural: Something that exists outside, above and beyond nature, and beyond our understanding. That's why the typical justification for claims of the supernatural is that the action in question should by all accounts have been impossible. It's not a supernatural occurance if a 1-in-1000 chance succeeds. Unlikely as it may be, it's still considered to be within the range of possibility and thus accounted for naturally. For something to be considered supernatural, it literally has to be at direct odds with our continued understanding of the world. The very act of understanding its nature invalidates the use of the term to describe it, and renders the act a part of the natural world, regardless of how extraordinarily rare it may or may not be.

Now, invoking the supernatural in a sense does mean that there is no need to look for an answer, but that's because in my view it's a question that has already been answered. This does not mean I invoke the supernatural to explain everything and thus in my view science falls apart, but that I settle for the supernatural answer when my faith would lead me to it. I have other reasons to believe my faith is true, and my faith leads me to believe certain things about the origin of the universe. I do not view the naturalistic history of the world to necessarily be evidence in contradiction of my faith, but simply an alternate way of understanding the world's history. One which I do not see a reason to believe instead of my faith. In cases where my faith does not lead to a supernatural reason for something, then I'm all for science having at it to explain it.

That's the thing though. So long as a supernatural explanation is invoked, you don't understand it and the question remains unanswered. What's more, being satisfied with such an answer effectively halts one's attempt to actually understand the nature of the phenomena. If you have the time, I seem to recall a video that rather neatly explained much of the same points I'd eventually make. It's worth a gander, but if you don't have time, I would still reccomend watching the first minute or so for an example of how preference of supernatural explanations can hamper the desire to understand phenomena.

Ok, sure. That's microevolution. You are still working with text, the characteristic of its color has just changed.

Again, macroevolution is just the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. The color change itself is the relevant change in the analogy, showing how many minute changes can eventually yield a completely different result, embodied in the image by a demonstration of how red can become blue. The text itself is just a medium for that change and an explanation of what the color change is supposed to illustrate.

Whatever you want to call it, the proposed naturalistic history of the world necessitates new genetic information being added at some point. If you take the entire genetic information from a population of fish, and shuffle it around as would be possible through natural reproduction, you are not going to get a lizard. No matter how much you shuffle. You can get a whole lot of different kinds of fish, but unless you add genetic information to that population you are not going to get something resembling a reptile. The theory of evolution predicts that such changes should be necessary in natural circumstances, but scientists have yet to observe such a change and confirm that prediction.

New genetic information is routinely added in the form of mutations that occur during the reproductive stages. This is usually a benign change and actually a very common phenomena (the average human has upwards of a hundred mutations in their DNA not present in either parent), though it is VERY important that one realize that mutation is generally less exciting than hollywood makes it out to be. Though it can result in very novel traits[footnote]see the nylon-eating bacteria priorly mentioned in the thread, see also Richard Lenski's E.coli experiment which resulted in E.coli bacteria capable of processing citrate in an aerobic environment. Mind you, that's unprecidented. E.coli's inability to do so is considered a defining trait of the bacteria.[/footnote]

To use your example, let's say you have a word processor with a set amount of colors and characters. You can shuffle those colors and characters around. You can make all sorts of images using those characters and colors. But, can you make an independently moving 3D image just by using the word processor? No. The word processor simply doesn't have the programming and information stored to do such a thing. Macroevolution, punctuated equilibrium, whatever you want to call it, cannot reach such a drastic change using only the information it starts with.

...Not to be disparaging, but I think you might be less familiar with this topic than you think you are. Evolutionary theory consists of two mechanisms working in concert. The first is genetic variation, which is routinely added (as noted priorly) via mutation during reproduction. The second is natural selection, which culls that variation in reflection of environmental factors. These are both WELL documented phenomena, and if you ignore the influence of one, you cease to describe evolution.

 

[gwilym101]

I really hope this thread dies soon. Its everything thats wrong with the Escapist. To many people who want so bad to bash on religion that they go on and on and on.

Im a Psychology major at the moment, senior year, actually doing research. Our theories/hypothesis/laws are the exact same as normal science since we use the scientific method. Now, onto the discussion.

Why do normal Christians (because we all know that you just want to bash them, dont hide it. Which, just so you know, discredits you) reject the theory of evolution? Because they believe in the Old Testament. Now, the old testament is one of the oldest, if not the oldest text we have. We have codex'es from thousands of years ago that mirror our bibles now. There is reliability between the Bible then and the Bible now. That means the Bible has some type of pull in its own right. No, its not the scientific method, but it is another source of evidence. Theologians do more than just read the bible, they make sure it is in its true form.

Now, the Theory of Evolution. Let me say something thats been said before, but you dont get. ITS ONLY A THEORY. ITS NOT 100% TRUE. ITS NOT A LAW... Now that I got that out of the way, lets focus on why its a theory. A theory is a POSSIBLE explanation to a hypothesis, with evidence behind it, but it is not INFALLIBLE. Seriously, the theory of evolution could be 100% wrong, but you dont want to accept that. Yes, it has evidence, thats why personally, I keep my eye on it, and dont reject it. Now, you say we have observed Macro, but we havent observed HUMAN macro. That means its a theory, that means it can be rejected, that means it can be 100% wrong.

Now, im a Christian, I believe in Creationism, but I damn well wont put down the Evolution theory, because it has some evidence, just like the reliability (scientific term here) of the oldest text we have.

Your not a freaking genius, your not smarter than any creationist, you are a discredit to any type of science you want to preach. Science is about proving why the world is, its about information, not getting your jollies off on trying to bash a religion. If you really cared about the theory, you wouldnt try to say "OH IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG, LISTEN TO ME", which is exactly what is going on here (yes it is, you dont care about any information being spread for the better of humanity, you just want to bash Christianity).

For my last sentence. I wont be looking at this thread again or any replies. Ill delete them before I even read them. I wanted to put the ACTUAL truth out there of why both are accepted/rejected (which its stupid to reject either of them, purely because you are always supposed to be open to new information as a scientist). So, thank you, I hope this actually tells you WHY, and I dont care how much you believe in evolution, or what videos over it you have, stop being ignorant and go back to TESTING. Testing is never done.

Right Evolution is a theory which means it has the potential to be not 100% accurate. However certain theories have so much evidence supporting them, and have been consistently shown to be accurate for so long that even if new evidence came to light it would not change the theory to any significant degree. Such theories include Germ theory, theory of gravity, heliocentric theory, the theory of relativity and theory of evolution. These theories may not be 100% accurate but they can not be 100% wrong.

Also you've said it is not a law. A law and a thoery are two different things. A law simply states that an event happens in relation to another event, it does not show the mechanism by which it happens. Laws are part of a theory not some classification higher than theory.

Now you say we haven't observed human macro evolution. Well for starts the only difference between micro and macro evolution is the time they take. Secondly there is lots of evidence that macroevolution has happened, because we have discovered hugh amounts of fossils of previous hominid species such as neanderthalis and australopithicus. Aslo homo sapiens are one species out of billions, it doesn't matter if we haven't seen macro-evolution in one species because we have seen it happen in others.

Now you claim the bible has some sort of reliability and your basis for this claim seems to be its age and the fact that people still read them. All that translates to is religious leaders were very efficient, and the bible is not the oldest text we have. Hindu texts pre-date the earliest known bible and ancient egyptian texts pre-date that.

 

[fractal_butterfly]

@disgruntledgamer
First of all I want to apologize, that I implied that you were a troll. I assumed that since this topic is normally troll-bait, but you seem to take the matter quite seriously.

-snip-

Actually it is. I'm not going to repost the evidence you can just look back what I and other people have shown, but I suspect no matter how much evidence proof or facts I give you won't chage your mind as you seem to have made it up before getting to the starting gate.

Once again, I know the evidence. I might not be as educated in this matter as I want to be, but I wrote what I wrote on the basis of the facts I know, the evidence I know about evolution and natural selection. I don't think, that we should abolish the theory of evolution and believe that god did it. That would be very cheap from a scientific perspective. But on the other hand it is very dangerous to defend a theory in a way you do. It stifles scientific advancement as much as the silly right wing extremist christians you have over there in the USA.

- snip - something about the difference between modification and mutation

LoL I love how you give an example of evolution and than call it Modification without actually explaining what you consider to be modification on a molecular level. Also you're wrong Substitution, Addition and Deletion mutation can cause new information and can cause things like fur color change, the pocket mouse is a good example. Your attempt to redefine evolution and give it a new name is laughable.

http://www.dnatube.com/video/11928/Natural-Selection-and-Adaptation

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/comparative/

Maybe we are not on common ground with the terminology. I am not a native speaker (as you might have guessed from my english ;-) ) and technical terms are exspecially hard in this regard. What I mean by "modification" is the recombination of genetic material on a molecular level, when the ovum and the sperm cell are created. As far as I recollect, the two genetic sets of the mother and the father are combined from the haploid chromosome sets in the ovum and the sperm cell to create the normal diploid chromosome set. Additionally, single allels from both haploid sets are exchanged betwen the chromosomes, creating new configurations of the given genes.
Like this, the given information is recombined in a new context, creating new characteristics of a given trait. Again (as far as I know) these are the mechanisms on which breeding is based, therefore the reference to Gregor Mendel. But (also again afaik), we cannot breed new species, since this would require mutation and creation of completely new genetic material.

-snip- trying to make a vain point about the theory of evolution beeing not as solid as it seems (may have picked a better example)

You obviously didn't watch the video I provided on my first post as it answers your issues completely, and it is a stronger theory than gravity whatever you want to admit it or not. The reasons have already been explain on the first couple of pages.

Again, how can you say that? What "theory of gravity" are we talking about? The Newton model works quite well, as it is descriptive, not a theory, but law. If you mean the theory "why and how is there gravity", you are right, we are far from understanding this; But this is not quite a point for the solidity of the theory of evolution, it's liek saying "this is not as bad as that". It could still be pretty bad.
What I wanted to show with my example is, that for example the "hard fossil evidence" is not as hard as often quoted. There are holes, big holes, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the facts.

-snip- about information in the DNA and repair mechanisms

Reading the first couple pages of a wikipedia pages does not make you an expert. Yes we have mechanisms like Polymerase that repair DNA but it's not full proof. And when these fail it can result in a beneficial, silent or harmful mutations.

A good example of this is Nylon-eating bacteria, Which resulted from a frame-shift mutation which added information. Now since Nylon wasn't invented until 1935......... You get the picture, we have also duplicated this process in the lab in other bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa which got to evolve to break down Nylon. However Pseudomonas aeruginosa did not use the same enzyme as Flavobacterium strain.

My knowledge about the repair mechanisms results from reading books about the topic and my biology course in ... highschool? College? Whats the equivalent to the german "Oberstufe" (year 11 to 13)? I quoted the wikipedia page to show, that I have a point, like you quote quite a lot YouTube Videos to show, that you have a point.

Your example of the nylon eating bacteria is a very good example of a beneficial mutation. Another often quoted example is sickle cell anemia in parts of africa with a high risk of malaria, since the anemia increases the resistance to the sickness. I would like to have a source of the nylon eating beeing a mutation and not a recombination of given genetic material (I want to have to source to read it, not to prove you wrong, this is interesting new information for me). Nylon is, after all, a hydrocarbon and therefor not unsimilar to the normal diet of bacteria.

-snip- about the possibilities of "good" and "bad" mutations

This is a classical definition of a Straw-Man. You built up this made up flawed position and than attempted to tear it down. An argument I might add that isn't even your own as I've seen this example used and debunked before. Sorry but it's not going to work mutations aren't tornado's running through a junk yard and evolution isn't random. You completely ignored natural selection either because you don't understand it or you purposely ignored it.

Evolution is like trying to pick a sequence of lets say 9 numbers. Picking all 9 numbers in the first shot is highly unlikely, but natural selection allows you to save the numbers you get right. Try it it doesn't take that long.

I am sorry, that you don't like my example ;-) I think, you quite misunderstood. The point I wanted to make is, that harmful mutations are much more likely than useful mutations. So even if you get an organism with a useful mutation, it is very likely be destroyed by a harmful one.

I do understand natural selection, and in my book, it is indeed random. But maybe we are again mixing up terms. The mechanisms, by which one trait survives and the other not are non-random. They base on pure logic. If one individual is faster than another one of its species, it can outrun predators and is more likely to reproduce. But the creation of new traits by mutation are in fact completely random. Which brings us back to the tornado. To create a completely new trait, that is visible, beneficial and therefore relevant for the process of natural selection, is highly unlikely. Were are not talking about taking a 9 digit number, the numbers are a little bit higher (not the bullshit in the video, which makes the fun of creationists they deserve, but still very unlikely). And unlike your statement there is a high possibility of reversing the process, like the loss of an accumulated silent mutation due to the death of the carrier or the destruction of the mutation by a "bad" mutation.

We don't even have to go as far as looking as the chemistry of large molecules, amino acids in particular, to support my point.

I'm pretty sure your point would just be another copy and pasted Straw-Man wall of text, so I might as well debunk it now and save you the time, it's a combination of chemical reactions and thermodynamics.

I am sorry, but your video does nothing to disprove my point. I am talking about a book about macro molecule chemistry; unfortunately it is written in german, therefore not easy to find digital quotes ("Das Molekül und das Leben" if you want to look it up). Its about several properties of amino acids and large hydrocarbons, which make it near impossible for most of the processes required in the process of the elongation of DNA (which has, afaik, still to be proven today, but please give me the information you have (!= YouTube videos), if I am wrong).

I will not start a debate about the spontaneous ermegence of life, since this thread only discusses evolution, but this would also an interesting topic to further develop my thesis.

I'm sure your YEC school will be proud, but in reality.

I will ignore your obvious provocation (most of all for the reason, that you are assuming to much) and post some questions about the video. One of the presented facts stumped me. Is it possible for RNA to spontaneously reproduce itself? As far as I know, does any kind of RNA or DNA need outher mechanisms to duplicate and transcribe. Also concerning the mentioned experiment, as far as I know were some amino acids created in the process of the experiment, but not the necessary four Guanin, Thymin, Adnin and Cytosin. I'd like a better source here... There are other flaws in the presented theories. As the narrator explains, the theories are still in its infancy, but on the same breath calls anyone an idiot, who thinks otherwise? Not quite scientific thinking in my book.

TL;DR:
What I want to say is, that you have to be careful, what you call a "fact". You have to check everything you are given as a fact today, because there are to many people trying to enforce their own agenda.
I don't want you to run into the curches, I want you to run to your books (or even wikipedia might be a good start). Check your facts, check the people that are giving them to you and start thinking for yourselves. Please please please, for the sake of humanity...

I am very careful what I call facts and I do check them, the fact you don't like that they're facts is irrelevant. Your misconception and disinformation isn't changing that they're facts. I've debunked your copy and pasted creationist mombo jumob before and will continue to do so. Also I rarely use wikipedia I prefer to use more credible sources.

I don't know, why you think, that your mix of youtube videos, condescending behaviour and sarcasm would disprove any of the points I have made. My knowledge is, as I said, from what I learned at school and what I gathered from various book sources of biology, chemistry, informatics, physics and a good portion of common sense. I always try to be open minded and include any valid argument in the range of possibilities. If you start to exclude some theories in favor of another, you stop to think scientifically. Thats all I want to say. I know the climate you are coming from. There are many idiots out there who claim stupid things. I thought that I am not one of them. I am not trying to prove God or any illogical thing like that, only show that the theory of evolution in its current state is not as solid as some people want it to be.
There has much work to be done. On the other hand, people that are just saying "god did it" are not scientific either. If that was the answer to anything, we could stop and try to understand our amazing universe.
The believe in god and scientific research are no antagonists. It only gets bad, if you try to disprove one with another, since this does not make sense either way.
So, please, could we come back to a scientific discourse, ignore the extremists and try to find the truth?

 

[Quaxar]

Fuck this, wrote about 20 minutes on a well-sourced point for point argumentation, misclicked and lost it all. I'm not doing that all again... so I'll just be arguing against two statements of yours.

Again (as far as I know) these are the mechanisms on which breeding is based, therefore the reference to Gregor Mendel. But (also again afaik), we cannot breed new species, since this would require mutation and creation of completely new genetic material.
Of course we can breed new species, we've done that 5000 years ago when we cross-bred various wild wheats for our current one. Granted, it is still the same Genus, but it is a distinct species to every parent species.

My knowledge about the repair mechanisms results from reading books about the topic and my biology course in ... highschool? College? Whats the equivalent to the german "Oberstufe" (year 11 to 13)?
Not really a point but high school in the US or secondary school in the UK. College is more university.

Also concerning the mentioned experiment, as far as I know were some amino acids created in the process of the experiment, but not the necessary four Guanin, Thymin, Adnin and Cytosin.
Those four (technically five if you count Uracil replacing Cytosine in the RNA) aren't amino acids, they are nucleic acids. Big difference.

I am sorry, but your video does nothing to disprove my point. I am talking about a book about macro molecule chemistry; unfortunately it is written in german, therefore not easy to find digital quotes ("Das Molekül und das Leben" if you want to look it up). Its about several properties of amino acids and large hydrocarbons, which make it near impossible for most of the processes required in the process of the elongation of DNA (which has, afaik, still to be proven today, but please give me the information you have (!= YouTube videos), if I am wrong).

You're right, it is hard to find anything proper on that guy. One of the reasons I dislike non-English sources.

Only source I was able to find was <url=http://books.google.at/books?id=ip9tYdX-KfQC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=bruno+vollmert+molek%C3%BCl+leben&source=bl&ots=h1nuVvcLag&sig=V6LbEj1TI6Hl_cU_zOuWXRhboNo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yIy4UNmACcjEtAbY0YC4Aw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bruno%20vollmert&f=false>this book. And I'd like to cherry-pick the age-old argument of irreducible complexity from page 197 and give it a quick translation so everyone here can understand it:
RNA is complex and could not have come from random combination. Without a guiding mechanism we don't get a 1:1 copy.
The replication of nucleic acids was/is in need of several protein structures, on the other hand DNA would have been necessary to build those structures themselves. There was need for a membrane with interacting proteins and nucleic acids, although both of those components are also necessary building blocks of this same membrane.
The paragraph goes on to quote another author as saying that both semipermeable membranes and repairing enzymes are necessary components of reproduction.

This is simply false, either deliberately or for a lack of research. A membrane is not needed for RNA to reproduce itself, it is merely an evolutionary advantageous distinction of "mine" and "yours".
It's the same pointless and already refuted arguments all over again.

The believe in god and scientific research are no antagonists.

Well they actually are insofar as that a being that can literally break any natural laws willy-nilly would make the whole thing a bit pointless. But let's leave that part, this isn't really a religious discussion.

 

[Angie7F]

I understand evolution, and I know about the big bang, but seriously, it has very little impact on my day to day life so I dont really think much about it.
In the same way, it is none of my business if other people believe in evolution or not and I dont think they are right or wrong.

 

[Eddie the head]

Why do people reject the theory that says the universe came from essentially nothing, that everything that happens it coincidence, that we are only here by happenstance, that our behavior is largely pre-programed, that our lives will ultimately amount to nothing, and that we will all return to nothing?

Sounds kind of blink when you actually think about it.

because the alterinitive is stupid

Well he did answer the question. All be it inadvertently. Fear. Simple as that, the unknown is scary. If you believe in evolution you admit there is some things that you don't know. But the alliterative offers a bit more structure and security. It's scary to think that the human race could be wiped out tomorrow and the universe wouldn't care. A lot of the time denial of the facts is due to fear.

Edit. Just like posting this I am scared as hell I am going to get a lot of pissed off replays.

 

[fractal_butterfly]

Fuck this, wrote about 20 minutes on a well-sourced point for point argumentation, misclicked and lost it all. I'm not doing that all again... so I'll just be arguing against two statements of yours.

Damn, it sucks if such a thing happens :-/ I use the Notepad for this regard.

Again (as far as I know) these are the mechanisms on which breeding is based, therefore the reference to Gregor Mendel. But (also again afaik), we cannot breed new species, since this would require mutation and creation of completely new genetic material.

Of course we can breed new species, we've done that 5000 years ago when we cross-bred various wild wheats for our current one. Granted, it is still the same Genus, but it is a distinct species to every parent species.

Then my question is, why isn't it done more often? What is the barrier? I am asking, since I don't know. As for the wild wheats, do you have a read on that, a paper or something?

Also concerning the mentioned experiment, as far as I know were some amino acids created in the process of the experiment, but not the necessary four Guanin, Thymin, Adnin and Cytosin.
Those four (technically five if you count Uracil replacing Cytosine in the RNA) aren't amino acids, they are nucleic acids. Big difference.

So, to get that straight, they only got amino acids, and no nucleic acids in this experiment?

I am sorry, but your video does nothing to disprove my point. I am talking about a book about macro molecule chemistry; unfortunately it is written in german, therefore not easy to find digital quotes ("Das Molekül und das Leben" if you want to look it up). Its about several properties of amino acids and large hydrocarbons, which make it near impossible for most of the processes required in the process of the elongation of DNA (which has, afaik, still to be proven today, but please give me the information you have (!= YouTube videos), if I am wrong).

You're right, it is hard to find anything proper on that guy. One of the reasons I dislike non-English sources.

Only source I was able to find was <url=http://books.google.at/books?id=ip9tYdX-KfQC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=bruno+vollmert+molek%C3%BCl+leben&source=bl&ots=h1nuVvcLag&sig=V6LbEj1TI6Hl_cU_zOuWXRhboNo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yIy4UNmACcjEtAbY0YC4Aw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bruno%20vollmert&f=false>this book. And I'd like to cherry-pick the age-old argument of irreducible complexity from page 197 and give it a quick translation so everyone here can understand it:
RNA is complex and could not have come from random combination. Without a guiding mechanism we don't get a 1:1 copy.
The replication of nucleic acids was/is in need of several protein structures, on the other hand DNA would have been necessary to build those structures themselves. There was need for a membrane with interacting proteins and nucleic acids, although both of those components are also necessary building blocks of this same membrane.
The paragraph goes on to quote another author as saying that both semipermeable membranes and repairing enzymes are necessary components of reproduction.

This is simply false, either deliberately or for a lack of research. A membrane is not needed for RNA to reproduce itself, it is merely an evolutionary advantageous distinction of "mine" and "yours".
It's the same pointless and already refuted arguments all over again.

Once again: is RNA able to reproduce by itself? I know that some types of RNA are able to reproduce themselves, but that are again quite complex molecules, which would then have to have emerged themselves.

The believe in god and scientific research are no antagonists.

Well they actually are insofar as that a being that can literally break any natural laws willy-nilly would make the whole thing a bit pointless. But let's leave that part, this isn't really a religious discussion.

As much as I would like to discuss this, we can leave it at that ;-)

 

[Quaxar]

Again (as far as I know) these are the mechanisms on which breeding is based, therefore the reference to Gregor Mendel. But (also again afaik), we cannot breed new species, since this would require mutation and creation of completely new genetic material.

Of course we can breed new species, we've done that 5000 years ago when we cross-bred various wild wheats for our current one. Granted, it is still the same Genus, but it is a distinct species to every parent species.

Then my question is, why isn't it done more often? What is the barrier? I am asking, since I don't know. As for the wild wheats, do you have a read on that, a paper or something?

There's no barrier, we create new species for our use all the time in bacterias but since the easiest way of doing that is using a virus to artificially introduce those new genes instantly I wouldn't have thought you'd accept that.
One barrier with natural breeding is always time, artificial genetic manipulation nets you the results you want without all the time and undesired individuals in between.

My main source with the wheat is my botanical lecture which I can't really link for obvious reasons. But since my professor is diligent I can tell you that her cited source (besides being in the field for decades) is <url=http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-Edition-Jane-Reece/dp/0321558235>this book, one of the big biology textbooks.
Apparently it is harder to find good and simple sources than expected but <url=http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/wheat.htm>here is something about the history of wheat domestication and if you want something unreliable <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triticum_aestivum>here is the wikipedia article about our common wheat with a single citation.
Fortunately there is at least one good one by a Japanese university group <url=http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/5/750.full>here.

Also concerning the mentioned experiment, as far as I know were some amino acids created in the process of the experiment, but not the necessary four Guanin, Thymin, Adnin and Cytosin.
Those four (technically five if you count Uracil replacing Cytosine in the RNA) aren't amino acids, they are nucleic acids. Big difference.

So, to get that straight, they only got amino acids, and no nucleic acids in this experiment?

The 20 standard amino acids are basically made from amine (NH2) and carboxylic acid (COOH), a nucleic acid is composed of a base (A,T,G,C/U) a sugar (<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribose>ribose or desoxygenized ribose, which is one O less) and a <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphoric_acid>phosphoric acid.
Yes, amino acids are easier to form but the main point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate that under conditions of an early earth organic compounds can come out of non-organic starting material without any higher involvement. And this was a break-through find, it isn't necessary to create a full cell out of nothing right away.

I am sorry, but your video does nothing to disprove my point. I am talking about a book about macro molecule chemistry; unfortunately it is written in german, therefore not easy to find digital quotes ("Das Molekül und das Leben" if you want to look it up). Its about several properties of amino acids and large hydrocarbons, which make it near impossible for most of the processes required in the process of the elongation of DNA (which has, afaik, still to be proven today, but please give me the information you have (!= YouTube videos), if I am wrong).

You're right, it is hard to find anything proper on that guy. One of the reasons I dislike non-English sources.

Only source I was able to find was <url=http://books.google.at/books?id=ip9tYdX-KfQC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=bruno+vollmert+molek%C3%BCl+leben&source=bl&ots=h1nuVvcLag&sig=V6LbEj1TI6Hl_cU_zOuWXRhboNo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yIy4UNmACcjEtAbY0YC4Aw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bruno%20vollmert&f=false>this book. And I'd like to cherry-pick the age-old argument of irreducible complexity from page 197 and give it a quick translation so everyone here can understand it:
RNA is complex and could not have come from random combination. Without a guiding mechanism we don't get a 1:1 copy.
The replication of nucleic acids was/is in need of several protein structures, on the other hand DNA would have been necessary to build those structures themselves. There was need for a membrane with interacting proteins and nucleic acids, although both of those components are also necessary building blocks of this same membrane.
The paragraph goes on to quote another author as saying that both semipermeable membranes and repairing enzymes are necessary components of reproduction.

This is simply false, either deliberately or for a lack of research. A membrane is not needed for RNA to reproduce itself, it is merely an evolutionary advantageous distinction of "mine" and "yours".
It's the same pointless and already refuted arguments all over again.

Once again: is RNA able to reproduce by itself? I know that some types of RNA are able to reproduce themselves, but that are again quite complex molecules, which would then have to have emerged themselves.

I was under the impression I did already say that RNA can reproduce itself but I can't for the life of me find it again in my latest posts so I have to assume it was part of an argument I made in the text I lost.
Anyway, yes, self-replicating RNA is the cornerstone of abiogenesis and we do have proof for that claim. Problem is that this is a very early phenomenon which we don't occuring naturally find anymore because unlike RNA the DNA cannot reproduce itself and even RNA we find today employs far more efficient mechanisms but we have discovered one enzyme in 2001 that can replicate a small and selected portion of itself and have last year found one called <url=http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/rna-enzyme-makes-another-rna-e.html>tC19Z capable not only of copying sequences half its own length but also of other RNA enzymes. We're not too far from actually producing a completely self-replicating one.

The believe in god and scientific research are no antagonists.

Well they actually are insofar as that a being that can literally break any natural laws willy-nilly would make the whole thing a bit pointless. But let's leave that part, this isn't really a religious discussion.

As much as I would like to discuss this, we can leave it at that ;-)

I don't mind personally, I just think it is the wrong thread for this kind of arguments though I did use some already a few pages ago with a young-earth creationist.

 

[sumanoskae]

They understand it perfectly, but they will never accept it because their belief structure prevents them from doing so, so they remain willfully in denial. And that's fine, you can believe whatever you want, the only problem arises when you start to think I should as well.

Again, you can believe whatever you want, but you can't ask me to pretend that it makes sense. You can't ask me to not see the obvious, to not seek the truth, to accept conjecture and faith and reject reason and evidence. You can believe it all you want and we'll be fine, but don't ever ask me to.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Damn! This is some nasty thread right here. Theory of evolution works for now, with the evidence we have and under the conditions of living beings already kicking around. They're still trying to wrap their head around organic matter coming to the world via random fuck-ups of inorganic matter.

CAPTCHA: "zero tolerance" - Ahahahaha... if only you knew, captcha, if only you knew.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Now, the Theory of Evolution. Let me say something thats been said before, but you dont get. ITS ONLY A THEORY. ITS NOT 100% TRUE. ITS NOT A LAW... Now that I got that out of the way, lets focus on why its a theory. A theory is a POSSIBLE explanation to a hypothesis, with evidence behind it, but it is not INFALLIBLE. Seriously, the theory of evolution could be 100% wrong, but you dont want to accept that. Yes, it has evidence, thats why personally, I keep my eye on it, and dont reject it. Now, you say we have observed Macro, but we havent observed HUMAN macro. That means its a theory, that means it can be rejected, that means it can be 100% wrong.

It is true that Evolution is just a theory, but so are many things we have come to accept in our daily lives. The theory of Gravity is still a theory after all. While most people's understanding of gravity revolves around Issac Newton's theory, we have proposed theories by Einstein, Galileo and others (Granted, the former two have theories that still use Issac Newton's suggestion that mass is the key factor). The problem is, its near impossible to prove either the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. We do, however, have a huge amount of evidence that supports these theories. In fact, its gotten to the point where most people within the fields of Biology all accept evolution as a fact. Its a theory still, but its a theory that is all, but a law, but because it requires a gradual change that we as Humans will never experience again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory, just read this man.)

Your not a freaking genius, your not smarter than any creationist, you are a discredit to any type of science you want to preach. Science is about proving why the world is, its about information, not getting your jollies off on trying to bash a religion. If you really cared about the theory, you wouldnt try to say "OH IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG, LISTEN TO ME", which is exactly what is going on here (yes it is, you dont care about any information being spread for the better of humanity, you just want to bash Christianity).

You're* x2.

Science is about finding the truth, that is true in itself, but creationists don't have evidence to support their claim. Their idea to explain the birth of the world and its inhabitants isn't even a theory, its classified as a belief. If you want knock the validity of Evolution, that's fine, but you can't turn around and try to claim we're doing science a disservice by arguing against you when a lot of schools in this world are forcibly feeding people information that is not true.

For my last sentence. I wont be looking at this thread again or any replies. Ill delete them before I even read them. I wanted to put the ACTUAL truth out there of why both are accepted/rejected (which its stupid to reject either of them, purely because you are always supposed to be open to new information as a scientist). So, thank you, I hope this actually tells you WHY, and I dont care how much you believe in evolution, or what videos over it you have, stop being ignorant and go back to TESTING. Testing is never done.

.....This entire paragraph sums up the problems with your argument like no other.

1) What is wrong with arguing!? You put your opinion up here, you should at least take enough pride in it to try and defend it. Ignoring replies and counter-arguments goes against the very point of an open forum!

2)You didn't put any truth out there. You just stated the obvious. We all know evolution is a theory, but its still a theory accepted by most biologists. There is no information based in science that supports creationism.

3) You can test the theory of evolution in the same manner you prove the speed of light or the theory of Pangea. You can't,(Actually, I'm probably wrong about Pangea. I'm pretty sure that's been proven.) and no single human being is ever going to be able to. Evolution is the gradual change over time through mutation in response to stimuli in the environmental. The change is gradual. We're not going to experience it within our lifetime and we can't force it with the technology we currently have (Not to mention the ethical problems that come with it.)

 

[wolf thing]

Brain washing. Children believe what they are told and what there parents do. Almost ever person i have met you does not believe in evolution and religious and there reason they are religious and dont believe in science is because of there parents. Its brain washing, there are told to believes in lies and miss information until it is all they believe, they then pass it on to there children. This is why i refuse to believe in god, and why i hate religion, the stupid breeding and raising more stupid.
It doesn't help that eduction on the sciences is very poor as well, there was a big movement in the state to have creationism to be taught in schools. this means children and young people lack the relevant information to help brake them from there parental brain washing and stick with until it is to hard to brake away from.

 

[StrangerQ]

Because in the end it is just a THEORY and how to dictionary states it.

(sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.]

Since it is a theory one can quite easily make a other theory that:

However Evolution happens to be quite well explained and etc. which leans me to trust this concept of sharing dna and
common ancestor with apes.

 

[90sgamer]

One of the strongest scientific theories to date, even stronger than the theory of Gravity and there are still people out there that reject it. Why? I can't get my head around it, I can show you facts, papers, journals, text books, fossils, just evidence piled on-top of evidence and it's.

Nope Science is lying to us or my religious ancient book says different so it must be wrong.

Is it the fact that they don't understand it or that they don't want to understand it? It's gotten to the point now that even YEC have had to accept evolution to a certain degree and decided to rewrite the definition of Macro Evolution just to say it doesn't exist. Nothing and I mean nothing in biology that we've learned in the last 100 years makes sense without evolution as a whole NOTHING! The Theory of Evolution is as important to biology as the Theory of Relativity is to physics.

Food for thought.

Edit: Here if you're still confused about evolution

Why? Because they are idiots. Oh, and information bias, but mostly just idiots. There is no middle ground on this one.

 

[Zalrus9]

I don't know if anybody else has said something like this, but I feel like I need to say something.

When I was about four years old, I was at the Ohio State Fair. My parents, both being doctors, had given me a shirt which had "I am a product of 6,000,000 years of Evolution" (can't remember the exact number, but that's not important. We were walking together, when a man came up, he must have been an appliance salesman or something, stopped us and started to harass me about what I thought of evolution; the usual stuff that people say. I was four years old, though, so I didn't have much to say. When he left, I remember saying to my parents "Why can't both be true?"

And I still believe this to this day. Evolution certainly tells us how things work, but, as with anything else, it doesn't explain why things work. Science needs to be on the How, or else any sort of understanding of the world around us will be corrupted by subjectivity, which is no good in a scientific setting. But Philosophy and suchlike can hold on to the deeper meanings of things.

Why can't people believe evolution is a scientific observation made into a theory and also believe what they find in their religious pursuits? If evolution says to you that the strong survive and that anything else is meaningless, then ask yourself "can I prove myself worthy? Can I go beyond what nature tells me to believe and make myself better?" Social Darwinism is kind of dumb and gives Evolution as a whole a bad name, and that's not what evolutionary theory is about.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope I got my point across.

 

[Kyrinn]

I don't know if anybody else has said something like this, but I feel like I need to say something.

When I was about four years old, I was at the Ohio State Fair. My parents, both being doctors, had given me a shirt which had "I am a product of 6,000,000 years of Evolution" (can't remember the exact number, but that's not important. We were walking together, when a man came up, he must have been an appliance salesman or something, stopped us and started to harass me about what I thought of evolution; the usual stuff that people say. I was four years old, though, so I didn't have much to say. When he left, I remember saying to my parents "Why can't both be true?"

And I still believe this to this day. Evolution certainly tells us how things work, but, as with anything else, it doesn't explain why things work. Science needs to be on the How, or else any sort of understanding of the world around us will be corrupted by subjectivity, which is no good in a scientific setting. But Philosophy and suchlike can hold on to the deeper meanings of things.

Why can't people believe evolution is a scientific observation made into a theory and also believe what they find in their religious pursuits? If evolution says to you that the strong survive and that anything else is meaningless, then ask yourself "can I prove myself worthy? Can I go beyond what nature tells me to believe and make myself better?" Social Darwinism is kind of dumb and gives Evolution as a whole a bad name, and that's not what evolutionary theory is about.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope I got my point across.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here but it does bring up an important point.
Evolution, as well as science in general, has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of the existence or non-existance of a deity. So far as our understanding goes, it will never be possible to either prove or disprove the existance of one under experimental conditions.

That being said, evolution is more or less universally accepted; hence why it is a scientific theory. It's not just what some scientist said. It's years of peer-reviewed research that has been repeatedly confirmed. It can never be proven to the point where we are 100% sure, but to ask such is completely ridiculous. The best way to explain this is by comparing it to gravity: every time you throw a rock you are pretty sure the rock is going to fall down. You know this because every time you have thrown/dropped something it has fallen down. You can never be 100% sure that the rock will not fall up. You can only keep throwing rocks and say "The last billion times the rocks behaved in this manner, therefore it is safe to assume this is how gravity works." It's the same with evolution. We can never be 100% certain that natural selection results in an increase of favourable traits in the population, but we can observe it so many times that to say otherwise is pure ignorance. (disclaimer: I am not saying natural selection = evolution. just highlighting that one aspect to make my point)

The only places where people think the jury is still out on evolution is where you find religous fanatics. Places where people think evolution is some scientific way of saying there is no god; sorry bible belt but I'm looking at you here. The jury is still very much out on the origins of life however.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Once again, I know the evidence. I might not be as educated in this matter as I want to be, but I wrote what I wrote on the basis of the facts I know, the evidence I know about evolution and natural selection. I don't think, that we should abolish the theory of evolution and believe that god did it. That would be very cheap from a scientific perspective. But on the other hand it is very dangerous to defend a theory in a way you do. It stifles scientific advancement as much as the silly right wing extremist christians you have over there in the USA.

Well than get educated in the matter, that's the purpose of this thread you can start with the video I provided on page 1 as it's meant for school children and should be too hard to figure out. You should not be telling people the theory of evolution is wrong when you arn't educated in the matter. You provided NO EVIDENCE, and your entire assumed conclusion is based off of "God must of done it"

What I mean by "modification" is the recombination of genetic material on a molecular level, when the ovum and the sperm cell are created. Again (as far as I know) these are the mechanisms on which breeding is based, therefore the reference to Gregor Mendel. But (also again afaik), we cannot breed new species, since this would require mutation and creation of completely new genetic material.

I know what you mean by modification as I've seen this copy and pasted argument before, it's a made up creationist term that has no basis. When you modify something you change it which is mutation. It was made up by creationist wack jobs to try and muddy the waters of evolution.

To get on topic we have seen mutations provide new information, they happens with addition mutations and frame-shift, we've also seen macro evolution in the lab. I've given examples of both of these look back a couple of pages.[/quote]

Again, how can you say that? What "theory of gravity" are we talking about? The Newton model works quite well, as it is descriptive, not a theory, but law. If you mean the theory "why and how is there gravity", you are right, we are far from understanding this; But this is not quite a point for the solidity of the theory of evolution, it's liek saying "this is not as bad as that". It could still be pretty bad.

Well for starters a scientific theory holds more weight than a scientific law. This is a known fact, you clearly don't even know the difference between a law and a theory. Second people have answer this question on why evolution is a stronger theory myself included back on page 1.

What I wanted to show with my example is, that for example the "hard fossil evidence" is not as hard as often quoted. There are holes, big holes, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the facts.

Well fossil evidence isn't all we're going on far from it and fossil evidence is hard evidence. Of course there's going to be gaps, for some species the gaps are quite huge for others they're really small. The video I provided explains this and shows this, if you had bothered to watch it and learn something instead of just copy and pasting recycled creationist flawed arguments.

Heres another one on human evolution for you and anyone else who thinks were still looking for the missing link.

My knowledge about the repair mechanisms results from reading books about the topic and my biology course in ... highschool? College? Whats the equivalent to the german "Oberstufe" (year 11 to 13)? I quoted the wikipedia page to show, that I have a point, like you quote quite a lot YouTube Videos to show, that you have a point.

You don't have a point at least not a very informed one, what made you think that repair mechanisms that wern't 100% effective would cause problem for evolution? If you only have a high school education don't attempt to lecture people on the fallacies of evolution, because when you actually run into someone who knows what they're talking about it's probably not going to very well for you.

I provide videos to illustrate my points because I find people will often click a video before reading a 10 page study, on top of which if they only have a high school understanding like yourself they're probably not going understand it anyway. The videos I provide are actually well verified, checked and actually provide sources so you know they're not full of BS.

Your example of the nylon eating bacteria is a very good example of a beneficial mutation. Another often quoted example is sickle cell anemia in parts of africa with a high risk of malaria, since the anemia increases the resistance to the sickness. I would like to have a source of the nylon eating beeing a mutation and not a recombination of given genetic material (I want to have to source to read it, not to prove you wrong, this is interesting new information for me).

Of course I always give my sources when asked, and I assure you they're not from christian blogs.

No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon
oligomer degradation

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/9/3780.long

Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution

http://aem.asm.org/content/61/5/2020.long

Flavobacterium Sp K172 ( a condensed down understanding)

http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2010/Flavobacterium.html

Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug ( This is more of a creationist debunking of the misconception of Nylon eating bacteria)
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

I am sorry, that you don't like my example ;-) I think, you quite misunderstood. The point I wanted to make is, that harmful mutations are much more likely than useful mutations. So even if you get an organism with a useful mutation, it is very likely be destroyed by a harmful one.

Actually most mutations are silent and No there not more likely to be destroyed by a harmful one, thats why we have natural selection, we weed out the bad and take the good.

I do understand natural selection, and in my book, it is indeed random. Which brings us back to the tornado. To create a completely new trait, that is visible, beneficial and therefore relevant for the process of natural selection, is highly unlikely. Were are not talking about taking a 9 digit number, the numbers are a little bit higher (not the bullshit in the video, which makes the fun of creationists they deserve, but still very unlikely). And unlike your statement there is a high possibility of reversing the process, like the loss of an accumulated silent mutation due to the death of the carrier or the destruction of the mutation by a "bad" mutation.

No you don't understand natural selection because it's not random, and your tornado straw-man argument is wrong because, mutations are not running through destroying everything all at once. Mutations are random but they're governed by natural selection a concept which you cannot wrap your head around. There is also no possibility of reversing the process as long as the environmental presser is maintained with natural selection, as any organisms that lose the trait will be weeded out see the links I provided you on Pocket Mice for a better understanding. My numbers example is infinity more accurate than your BS tornado straw-man argument that makes no sense.

I am sorry, but your video does nothing to disprove my point. I am talking about a book about macro molecule chemistry; unfortunately it is written in german, therefore not easy to find digital quotes ("Das Molekül und das Leben" if you want to look it up). Its about several properties of amino acids and large hydrocarbons, which make it near impossible for most of the processes required in the process of the elongation of DNA (which has, afaik, still to be proven today, but please give me the information you have (!= YouTube videos), if I am wrong).

Yes it does you either didn't understand it or never watched it to the end. Kinda hard for me to debunk something I can't read, but I suspect it's just more creationist garbage I've seen debunked before, as if it wasn't it would probably be readily available in almost any language. It's not my responsibility to find your sources in a readable language. If I told you I had a source that proved God was actually an alien, but it was written in some Native American language so you'd just have to take my word for it would you?

One of the presented facts stumped me. Is it possible for RNA to spontaneously reproduce itself? As far as I know, does any kind of RNA or DNA need outher mechanisms to duplicate and transcribe. Also concerning the mentioned experiment, as far as I know were some amino acids created in the process of the experiment, but not the necessary four Guanin, Thymin, Adnin and Cytosin. I'd like a better source here.

Yes in fact it's thought that maybe RNA came first. Remember life in it's simplest form is nothing more than self replicating molecules. As for amino acids created in the lab it's been done since 1958. In fact Amino acids have been found in comets. And if this stumped you I highly don't recommend you watch the video on ring species I posted because your head might explode.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/long-neglected-experiment-gives-.html

I don't know, why you think, that your mix of youtube videos, condescending behaviour and sarcasm would disprove any of the points I have made. My knowledge is, as I said, from what I learned at school and what I gathered from various book sources of biology, chemistry, informatics, physics and a good portion of common sense. I always try to be open minded and include any valid argument in the range of possibilities. If you start to exclude some theories in favor of another, you stop to think scientifically.

You haven't made any points just recycled debunked creationist garbage, and like I said Creationism is not a theory it doesn't even meet the criteria of a hypothesis. You either need to update your books or stop reading pandas and people.