Hello everyone , well here is the thread, this thread is for debating evolution vs intelligent design/creationism , I urge anyone interested in the topic to post your thoughts and opinions , so this doesnt just boil down to me vs fastlane, so anyone with an opinion post it , we are all equally intelligent and everyone's opinions are worth as much as the next.

I will post a lot of stuff from the previous lhc thread , since it deviated completely from the lhc to evolution discussion , well lets get started.

So to begin , let's see what the theory of evolution states.
Evolution states , that organisms can change/evolve over time through the process of natural selection. This itself , makes sense , however , scientists have taken this idea much much further , stating that all life on planet earth evolved from 1 single cell organism over billions of years. It is thought , after the big bang , after earth was created , there was a big ocean of water/elements , and over millions of years , some elements somehow binded together , to form the first living cell. This cell then , replicated itself , and over miliions and millions of years , evolved , into a very simple living organism, and over millions and millions of years , this organism evolved into others , and this chain continued until today , forming all life on planet earth. Thats the basics of evolution, now I will post all the MASSIVE and HUGE problems with this theory.

#1: Atoms DO NOT bind themselves.

They state "somehow"(yes , they avoid the question because they cannot answer it) , billions of years ago , either through lightning , or some other form of process , or through chance , this atoms binded , creating the first living cell. This is absurd , today , with all of our vast knowledge , technology , and understanding of the world , CANNOT create a living cell or living anything from scratch. We know the composition of cells , but even if we put the chemicals required together ,there is no life , there is no binding , and much less replicating. We have the technology to replicate any type of environment they could think the earth must have been like , but , even though numerous tests and experiments , they have failed and cannot do it. Now , if the first living cell just binded out of chance , then it should mean that we should fairly easily be able to reproduce it today , but we CANNOT do it , because it's not that simple a process , and since we today cannot understand it , and probably wont for a long time to come, if ever , it's because it is a process too complicated for us to understand , so how could such a complicated and impossible to replicate(as of today) process happen all on it's own by chance ?

#2: Excruciatingly detailed and complicated design EVERYWHERE.

The very complicated design of our universe , world , and life on earth , is not something that matches a theory of chaos and chance. There is a very clear design of everything , from the stars to our cells , and it's not simple , basic design , it's very very very very complicated. The human being isn't something could have come about by chance , there is a very strict set of guidelines we follow , It is very obvious we were created to take advance to all of the properties of our existence , we have eyes to see , ears to hear , nose to smell , and nerves to sense touch , and a brain that handles all of this things for automatically so we dont have to worry about any of them , they are all done for us , all we have to do is enjoy our being, does this harmonic design look like something that could have evolved out of chance ? Or does it make more sense that we were created , in a way , that we would not have to bother with all of our internal systems , we have a subconcious that runs the machine for us. The complexity of our lives , our cells , that were once thought to be very simple have turned out to be extremely complicated systems which follow strict rules according to DNA. DNA is the code which tells all cells what to do , what they are , and how to behave, does this system appear to be a system that just created itself ? See , through science we have learned that our very existence is governed by rules , and when we got down to the smallest part that we could (our cells) , we discovered DNA , a code that TELLS the cells exactly what to do , our cells follow rules and orders from our internal code to do their functions , so , who created this code ? Oh yeah , it created itself right , somehow , that first cell billions of years ago , found a way to replicate itself , and created a system to tell it's daughter cell what to do , it created the DNA system , or did this first cell already have DNA ? Does this make sense to you ? Well this is what they teach. We can go deep into the complexity of our design , from cells to systems like our eyes and organs , but I would be too long a post , so at the end of the post I will put some links to some movies which explain in more detail our INSANELY complicated system that runs itself for us to be here.

#3: Timeline

The evolution timeline doesn't match or make sense , and in fact , contradicts evolution. They state life evolved over billions of years , to be plentiful , HOWEVER , they also state that 65 million years ago , a comet or meteor or asteroid hit earth , killing the dinasours and most of earth's life , it is believed very very small amounts of life remained , with bacteria and maybe some plants and the like. Ok , so , we are now talking about all of the life we have now evolving over a period of 65 million years. Here is a timeline of evolution from wiki
The basic timeline is a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with (very approximately):

* 4 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
* 3 billion years of photosynthesis,
* 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
* 1 billion years of multicellular life,
* 600 million years of simple animals,
* 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
* 550 million years of complex animals
* 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
* 475 million years of land plants,
* 400 million years of insects and seeds,
* 360 million years of amphibians,
* 300 million years of reptiles,
* 200 million years of mammals,
* 150 million years of birds,
* 130 million years of flowers,
* 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
* 200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today.

Wait wait wait , so the meteor ONLY killed the dinasours ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So all other forms of life overcame the meteor , only dinasours suffered the consequenses ? From my understand it killed basically everything , or was this the ice age theory ? Man , you scientists keep changing your theories around , but in any case , anything that was harsh enough to extinct the dinasours would have killed anything else alive in the planet , with the exeption of maybe some plants and bacteria. So considering the time for our current animals and ouruselfes to have evolved is set in the millions (around 25 million for a whale) , it is IMPOSSIBLE for all life to have RE-evolved in 65 million years.

#4 Transitional fossils

This is one massive blow to evolution , WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS ? We find NO RECORD of evolution actually happening. There are no bones of any transitions , every single animal alive today , should have thousands or millions of evolutionary stages , yet , we have ZERO record of any of these , NOT ONE fossil , nothing , there is no actual evidence of this actually every happening. How could we be so sure of evolution we teach it in school to children ( we are all taught we are decendants of apes , increadible), when we have NO RECORD of it EVER happening , we MUST have found something by now , they've been searching for the missing link since the theory was made , and to this day ,ZERO , NOTHING , talk about blindly believing something.

#5: Plants

If you believe evolution , then , plants and humans are actually related , and both living organisms actually come from a common ancestor. Really ? Why would this living organism make such a DRASTIC change , from animal to plant , or plant to animal and , on top of that , eventually , evolution to the point where planlife is massively abundant , and there are even trees which give fruit, which , how convinient , we can eat , again chance ? Because this fruits could be anything , yet , there is enough variety of fruits and vegetables in the world for us to not ever have to eat meat if we chose not to. Is this coincidence too ? How about the fact that fruits (nature's nutricious candy for us) are basically the right size for us , and have the right amount of nutrients for us , oh yeah , all of this is pure luck and chance right ? Why havn't plants evolved to walk and look for water and sunlight ? They've been here just as long as anything else , why dont they move ? Even bacteria moves, so this again , contradicts evolution. Plantlife differs so much from is, it is downright insane to day us and them have a common ancestor , but , that is exactly what evolution says , even though it doesn't make any sense.

#5: Aquatic life

This is just like the plant problem , how and why would this happen ? Why would land or water organisms go to the other ? It is believed the first organism was in water , so it would be safe to assume aquatic life must have started first , but , what in the world would cause this lifeform to go to earth ? Here is another problem , it takes MILIIONS of years for organisms to evolve , if an aquatic organism life say a fish got on land , it would die, thats where it ends , it doesnt have a million years to evolve , if it cant breathe it dies. Here is the proposed evolution of a whale

If you look at the graph , thats roughly 25 million years from one to the other. But , animals dont have that time , PHemox argued "Seriously, natural selection happens because of their habitat, food supply, natural enemies and whether or not you can adapt to changes" , Yes , but thats a BIG LIE , when animals can no longer support themselves on current food supply , they die. We have the problem of global warming , polar bears are suffering from ice melting too fast , polar bears are soon going to be facing extinction , no evolution , or are you saying polar bears are going to evolve in pelicans and fly to florida ? Well this is exactly what evolution would say, the problem is , how are polar bears going to survive 20 million years to evolve ? They will die and become extinct , thats the most obvious and logical outcome.


#6 Eggs

Here's other strange facts which put evolution in question , as there is no reason for them yet they are.

Why do chickens lay eggs ? What could have possibly cause chickens to lay eggs ? Changes in environment ? Really ? Fish lay eggs too , and many other animals do , but why ? It's such a drastic change and for no reason , what could have cause animals to change from laying eggs to not or the other ? Considering this change would have taken , millions of years , there must have been a very good reason for it , but there is no explanation to this. In fact , since we technically evolved from bacteria , and bacteria just replicates itself through cell division, what would have caused this system to change to organisms mating and then either laying eggs or birthing a baby ? Seems like a pain of a system next to just duplicating yourself , which is a much faster and efficient way to spread yourself.

Well I think this post has gotten big enough ,and I havnt even touched the big bang , so I'm going to stop it here. Again , I encourage everyone interested to post their opinions on the subject , here is the link to a good video that shows how complex the workings of a cell are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31cRVrKbfSE&feature=related

Do take the time to see the video , then ask yourself , does all of this look like something that could have created itself from nothing out of chance ? And thats a cell , scientists say THE UNIVERSE itself was created by chance and from nothing, now thats 100% true and pure insanity.

Oh yeah , and fastlane , post coherent explanations to the problems I posted with evolution , not just "well we scientists only go on facts and when we dont know something we just ignore it and don't comment , so , I don't know , but evolution and the big bang are true because science books say they are" . LOL

Oh yeah , and lets not forget , not long ago A lot of scientists believed in the steady state theory , which taught the universe always existed , until through experiments and scientific discovery , they found out one thing , the universe HAS NOT always existed , it was in fact , CREATED. however , Scientists refute God with all their mighty will , so , they decided , the bing bang , something exploted ,what exploded ? Well , a bean ? Smaller than an atom ? With 4 forces ? But IMMENSLY POWERFULL , the ALL POWERFULL MIGHTY BEAN , and where did it come from ? It must have always existed , we guess , so this bean exploded (remember , smaller than an atom) and created all the billions of stars and billions of galaxies. Really ? I see. So scientists (the smart ones as they believe themselves to be) belive the universe was created by an ever existing all powerful bean , and not the all powerful God , because it is impossible for God to exist , but of course , an ever existing bean smaller than an atom that exploded with enough energy to create the entire universe , that , makes perfect sense. This is what they teach children , something that makes ZERO sense , oh yeah , and lets not forget , sicentists also say "MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED" , of course , unless a powerfull mighty bean explodes in nothingness , then matter and stars and water and planets and everything else will create itself, fantastic , very enlightening.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHA
LMFAOROTFL

So what did scientists learn about the universe ?
That it was CREATED.
Now if you wanna believe a bean created it , well thats on you , but science has not proved what created it , they have only discovered it was created , I believe by God , they believe by a bean , you tell me who makes more sense ?

I'd never seen it put that way before. Now that I have, everything that you say above is true. I'm not going to deny any fact or idea that you present above. It's all true.

Now then, realizing that the current theory is flawed as you stated above, it is natural to ask for a replacement world-view, something that allows us to ask "Why?" and this replacement world-view will say "Because...". It should take into account all the facts we already have (there are fossils, people are topologically similar to apes, dna exists) but put it in a new, better, "good" framework.

So without any use of scientific thought, language, or procedure (since you've already established science is wrong; great job!), how are we going to solve and explain points #1 (Atoms binding) through #6 (Eggs)?

This format would be nice:

Point #1: Atoms Binding
Wrong Science: They say this about atoms..blah blah blah... anything to keep a job.
Right Science: We say that about atoms...
Proof: As you can see, they said that atoms do this and we say they do that... Look! They are doing that! Case closed!

Point #2: ...
Wrong...
Right...
Proof...

Once this is done, we can show how this new world-view will fix the horrible situation science has left us in and how it will make the world a better place.

If we do this together, if we do this right, I think we can go a long way to showing people the error of their ways.

Well thats a very clever way of avoiding all my points there fastlane. The main point is , if scientists know evolution is fatally flawed (which they refuse to admit) , WHY are today's children being taught they come from apes, there is no God , and we have no soul ? Thats the issue , what people are being taught to believe. The theory of evolution and the big bang as a theory , is good , I have nothing against it in that light .But when scientists ridicule religion , and ridicule the idea of a God , then state they "KNOW" how it happened , then I believe you need more than a well thought out idea for this to stand, you need hard evidence and facts , things they don't have. If schools and the world are advocating and teching evolution , then the only reasonable thing to do would be to ALSO teach intelligent design , and let the children and people know we are unsure of what exactly happened or how it exactly happened , instead of telling them we KNOW we came from monkeys who came from bacteria. Scientists REALLY push evolution as fact , and they have fooled a lot of people into believing it , and this is wrong , because it is NOT fact , it should be taught as theory , side by side with intelligent design , it is VERY , in fact , much more likely that God was the force behind creation than a bean , yet evolution gets recognized by the science community as the only possibility , and that is wrong , they are using the trust people have put in them to fool them into believing something thats they know they are not sure about. And yes , I say fool and teach because when I myself went to school I was taught evolution , so they are feeding you this since your young , when you dont know better , and of course , believe what they are telling you is the truth.

Phemox ?
Joozie ?

I'm not avoiding any points and I certainly don't consider myself clever; Rather the opposite (on both points): I am affirming your all your points in your original post and stating them as all true.

Thus in light of the evidence you have provided and that I take them all as true, I ask again: In light of the facts we already have about the world, what is the alternative world-view that encompasses all these facts and thus should be taught and how do we validate it to the public?

All I'm hoping for are a simple few paragraphs about this replacement world-view so we can show how it is, obviously, better than the current one. And from this, we can inform the world about how evolution is wrong but this new theory, our theory, is right. That's all. As this is a thread about Evolution, then I would suspect that a replacement to the evolution world-view would be a good start. So why not start there and start the outline of this replacement theory?

And then we can work on, what should our curriculum be? What other theories should we consider in order for it not to be an us vs. them? How do we validate or invalidate experiments to validate or invalidate our new world-view? Etc...

Hi,

I read your post and your questions and I think that all of your objections to evolution seem to originate from the same root. You don't 'buy' that evolution can create designs as marvelous and complicated as the human body or the balance of our ecosystem or egg births.

I don't blame you. It's a lot to ask for someone to make him believe that molecules HAPPENED to get combined in such a way that a fish was created, and it so happened that there's smaller organisms in the sea that the fish can digest just fine and later lay EGGS to re-produce more fish. It's pretty much the same as the theorem with the monkey and the typewriter, expecting that if we leave that monkey typing for a few billion years, eventually it will come up with a Shakespeare play. It's not going to happen, because Shakespeare didn't just punched keys randomly, he had an understanding of the English language and he was conveying a story based on human experience and his imagination. The only way for a monkey to reproduce, say one page, of one of his plays would be to type ALL possible combinations of the English characters that would fit in one page, a task that would take no less than trillions of years or so, depending on the monkey's typewriting skills.

So how come people believe in such crap? To understand how evolution works you'll have to keep in mind that although chance plays a very strong role in all this, there is a very important rule that filters the random probability into meaningful results and 'flawless' designs. That rule is called 'survival of the fittest' which means that if a design is not 'fit' then it will be discarded, otherwise it will survive. Survival is very important because the surviving designs will spawn new designs based on that one but with minor random alterations(this is where chance comes from). Due to simplicity I will ignore mating(cross-over DNA from the mother and the father) and will assume autogamy. So, to demonstrate I want to give you an example of evolution in a much smaller problem than life:

I ask from 5 people to guess what my first name is (you can play this game at home):

A says my name is John.
B says it's Henry.
C says it's Bob.
D says it's David.
E says it's Alex.

Now I decide which one of them is the most fit. Fittest in evolution means who is closer to the solution of the problem. In real life, 'the problem' is who is the most compatible with its living environment but in our game its who is closer to my first name. I choose B, so he gets to 'survive' the next round and spawn 5 children. Everyone will now choose a new name based on B's answer but slightly altered.

A says Harold.
B says Howard.
C says Perry.
D says Lenny.
E says Hector.

I choose D and we go over it one more time:

A says Lemmy.
B says Denny.
C says Lex.
D says Larry.
E says Benny.

Larry would be right and D wins the game. So with a bit of chance, and me picking up a winner for each round, my name was guessed out of 10,000 possible male names, with under 15 guesses.

This is the same way evolution works. Fish using eggs in birth may seem complex indeed but it evolved that way. I'm sure that at some point there were other fish species as well that gave birth without an egg, or eggs from harder or softer material, etc. In the first case, I guess the newborn wouldn't survive without a protecting surrounding(the egg) at its current environment(the sea), so that specie got wiped out. Likewise, the softer eggs might have made it more attractive to other fish to hunt as food while the harder eggs would maybe make it impossible for the newborn to eventually break out from. So by natural selection, the fish we see today survived while others did not. It won't be absurd to assume that in many years from now, a series of mutations could evolve a certain specie of humans to hatch instead of getting pregnant as well. It could prove that eggs help a human grow quicker or better, maybe giving them longer life expectancy, or making them prettier, or anything that could help them live a better life in their environment than ordinary humans. Humans are mammals and just as mammals evolved from older species, likewise they can give birth to a new kind. If you ask yourself, why this hasn't happened yet, keep in mind that natural evolution does not examine all possibilities(it would take forever) so it cannot always guarantee an optimal solution to a problem. So, I don't know about eggs, but to the question: "Is humans the best organism possible for our current environment?" the answer is surely no.

If you pet the money, everytime he writes a meaningful word (or sylable in the beginning), and kick the moneky averytime he writes something like "hhgvr", he will after a while write readable words.

And he does that without every getting tought the correct words. The
teaching effect is just the petting or punishmet.

Taking this further, and taking out the intelligent reader, this
"petting and kicking" can be transformed to finding food or dieing in the desert.
Which is "nature" teaching to do a favoable behaviour.

(...now following the argumentation towards getics, mutation etc...
but im a bit too lazy now)

Yes , Larry , I am familiar with your genetics algorith experiments with gamestudio , so I can see why you root for evolution , however , none of this explains the hardest part , the beggining , and the fact that it is proposed it takes millions of years for evolution to happen.

"It's a lot to ask for someone to make him believe that molecules HAPPENED to get combined in such a way that a fish was created"
I think it's a lot more to ask than that. Re-read my post about how we still cant combine those molecules you say combined themselves.

"and it so happened that there's smaller organisms in the sea that the fish can digest just fine and later lay EGGS to re-produce more fish"
Right , organisms that all created themselves right ?

"expecting that if we leave that monkey typing for a few billion years, eventually it will come up with a Shakespeare play. It's not going to happen"
A billion years , wouldnt he have evolved by then ? Written all of shake'spears plays , invented a camcorder , written and made movies , created a computer with artificial intelligence which could write plays for him , created a space ship and maybe ventured into the universe ?

"there is a very important rule that filters the random probability into meaningful results and 'flawless' designs. That rule is called 'survival of the fittest' which means that if a design is not 'fit' then it will be discarded"
None of this explains why an animal would evolve to another one , this would only work if you were talking about an animal refining itself over millions of years to be the most perfect animal it could be , but of course , of its kind. Why would an animal evolve to a different animal ? Shouldnt he evolve to perfect itself ? But this is not what we see ,we just see a TON of species everywhere , some related , some not. You cant just base your whole theory on the fact that humans and monkeys look similar.

"I read your post and your questions and I think that all of your objections to evolution seem to originate from the same root"
You might have missed a lot of my points , it wasnt that I dont buy evolution can do that , well I dont , but , the problems the scientists have failed to answer with the theory. And , you did not provide one answer to any of the points , you just repeated what the text books on evolution say.

"I ask from 5 people to guess what my first name"
Did this 5 people create themselves as well ?

You know , you take the most important and fact in the matter so lightly ,

"It's a lot to ask for someone to make him believe that molecules HAPPENED to get combined in such a way that a fish was created"

You say it like it's no big deal , well it just happened , who knows how but it happened , lets get on with the theory , LOL , well isnt that easy , that "somehow molecules just combined" isnt a small step in evolution , it is it's founnduation , a VERY important principle in evolution , one which bares the HUGE problem of us not being able to "combine" as you so lightly put it this molecules ourselves , and scientists HAVE tried , but can't do it , yet you say it like it's a fact but since you know there is no evidence or proof of it and it doesnt make sense you barely touch the subject then move on to your explanation of how this works. This "Evolution" CANNOT work if molecules cannot bind themselves to form living cells by themselves, and since we cannot bind them ourselves , scientific evidence is then pointing towards the fact that this cannot happen , which means evolution cannot be right.

Take note people reading , this is how they fool people , they briefly touch tha sensitive and most relevant aspects of evolution , and just say it happened somehow , and continue to their more complete explanation of how evolution works , but without that first block in place , the whole theory collapses , so they are smart to evade the subject.

Oxy , even though you kind of understand evolution , your answer is very very basic and doesn't even remotely try to answer any of the problems I mentioned with evolution , again , just restates the theory.

@fastlane

I know you are mocking me , but I will answer your question , there are already other theories out there, there is Intelligent Design and Creationism , they all teach our world through science but instead of teaching the big bang or evolution they teach creation .

As I said before , evolution should be taught side by side with intelligent design , or none should be taught , since they both are good theories , and of course they both have some problems with them , but none outweighs the other ( well actually ID outweighs evolution , but I'm being fair).

Why Do I Die,

I'm not in the least interested in changing your fate in God or 'moving' you from Creationism or whatever to Evolutionism or Darwinism or whatever those 'opposite' fields are called. Consider me neutral, I don't gain money, whatever you root for. The only reason i posted in your thread is to explain you the evolution theory (I hope that since I said theory you'll pull your horses down now), because you seemed to have difficulties grasping how 'perceived randomness' can create such complex designs.

I'll make an effort to answer all your questions but you seem to be pissed of about something and I don't care for getting personally attacked. If you have a problem about Evolution being tought in schools, take it with your education system. In Greece, I never heard of Darwin at school while 'Christian Studies' was a major examined module for the first 9 years of school. Children belonging to different religions had to wait in the schoolyard for 45mins when that module was being tought. So whatever I know about evolution, is from personal research. In the school we were too busy learning about raining bread and talking snakes.




You should have been able to answer this question on your own if you've understood my previous post. It's not just 'chance'. Even today, scientists use the method of natural evolution instead of human logic to solve many problems. So you underestimate the effectiveness of NE and overestimate our current understanding of the universe and everything.



Space Antenna designed using Genetic Algorithms by NASA. No-one can explain why this particular design works, but it's more efficient than any design created with our current knowledge of physics.




Again, it's not chance alone. And any creature will evolve instincts (if we ignore human logic for a moment) to help him survive using its current capabilities. Those that fail to evolve beneficial instincts will die.




Irregardless of what it 'appears', Natural Evolution can explain how DNA evolved perfectly. I gave you an explanation already in my first post.




Each cell evolved from having no DNA, to a simple DNA, to a very very complex one.




Everything evolved. That's the big chasm between evolution and intelligent design or whatever you call it. The first cell didn't 'figure out' anything. The DNA inside the first cell was evolved abiding to the evolution rules like everything else. And the same with the re-production method. The cells that didn't re-product got extinct while the ones that did survived.




More sense than talking snakes.




I don't know what meteor you're talking about. There are many theories that try to explain the extinction of dinosaurs. If all species (plants, bugs, mammals, birds, fish) got wiped out 65 million years ago it would be improbable for us to be here now, so I highly doubt this. Again, you have a hard time accepting a theory like the Ice Age, but Dinosaurs and Humans co-existing happily only four thousand years ago makes perfect sense to you.. Shouldn't you be worried about explaining how dinosaurs got extinct under the new earth theory? The only recent disaster I can think of (which hasn't been proved, but it's mentioned in all major religions, which is interesting) is the Big Flood. But that still doesn't explain what happened to the sea dinosaurs.




We have so many species on earth, that there will always be some that will be immune to any known disaster(like roaches can withhold a nuclear attack). But I'm not familiar with that meteor theory, or whatever happened at dinosaur times.




Nothing more to say on this....




I have no idea. I don't follow the whole thing with fossils or whatever because I never had to prove to anyone about NE (until now I guess, but honestly I'm only answering questions...) To me, NE makes so much sense that I don't need any further proof. The proof for me is how we are able to observe NE today (genetic mutations, children looking like their parents, small changes in the human specie (more and more people being born without earlobes, more and more being immune to AIDS), etc). However, I'm sure you're over exaggerating, cause I've heard about fossils being found all the time.




I know.. So, what religion are you in?




Yes




It is highly unlikely that a plant transformed to an animal or visa versa. Out of all the population of primitive organisms only a very small fraction evolved into what we know as plants. Later on, other primitive organisms evolved to animals and fish. Just like only a small fraction of apes around the world evolved to the homo sapiens, independantly in every continent. Some species of humans got extinct while others managed to survive. Btw, in Creationism how exacly do you explain that Indians were living in america before colombus discovered them? Eve traveled a lot?

Now trees use 'fruit' to re-produce themselves. For the benefit of the tree, the fruit needs to evolve to something nutritious to animals, in hope that one will unwillingly transfer the seed to a new location while trying to eat the fruit. On the other hand, animals themselves evolved their digestive system to be able to use the nutritions in fruits since they were so easily available.




I'm sure that at some point, some human species evolved to only digest meat while others evolved to only digest veggies. Since the specie which could digest both had an easier time finding food, it re-produced more than the others, and eventually the other two species became extinct.




They are the right size for us because we only cultivate those. Farmers get to choose what to seed in their fields, thus effectively changing the environment. An evolved fruit which is the right size and nutritious to humans will have more chances to survive(because humans will help in its re-production) than one that is not. If a tree grows non-nutritious fruit for humans, we will most likely chop that tree for wood.




Because that would require major changes in their architecture. Why humans haven't evolved to fly? Never say never though, we haven't reached the end of evolution transformations. All species will continue to evolve indefinably.




Why should they? They get along just fine as they are..



You sure ask a lot of questions... I've been typing for over an hour now, so I'll need to take a break! I will answer a last one for you though:




Scientists speculate, but under no circumstances should a scientist say this: "It is my scientific opinion that there is no God. All there is is beans.. Beans!" A scientist is agnostic by nature and will only accept things that have been proven and only speculate about the rest. That's why you won't see many scientists touch the subject of God, but they will touch certain aspects of a religion which can easily be disproven (yes, like the talking snakes..)

There is one only real mistery still left about life.

It is the first entity capable of auto replication but simple enough to be the result of the mere chance
No bio chemist , nowadays, can even figure out something like that
Even the simplest living entities , for example some bacteria living in protected enviromentals , some hundred meters under the ground are so complex that they can not have been the first living creature
There are many hyphotesis but none of them is satisfactory
On the the contrary the theory of evolution is full deterministic and well documented
Once you have got such primordial entity and bilion years the evolution of the species is a natural consequence

Before I will start to answer some questions and statements, I have a question for you I'd like to have an answer on, to make sure I understood your post in general so I'll be able to draw my conclusion, and show you that the answer of life is most likely (I don't want to sound like your generalized scientists) 'evolution' rather than design/creationism.

My question: Do you agree with the following statements? You should take it as literal as possible, it is meant to be exactly as I wrote it, and there are no hidden meanings behind it if you would say 'yes' or otherwise.

*An organisation can not exist out of chaos by itself.
*If you would have well organised structures of molecules existing spontaniously out of chaos, you could easy draw the conclusion that a cell containing DNA, RNA and all the tiny machines moving inside cell could be spontaniously formed as well.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now follows a not-to-the-point wave of answers to questions you only made to enhance our insight of your opinion, but I think you have been wrong on several aspects.


Hmmm... did you try eat a whole pineapple in half an hour? Or a coconut... a melon? Or can you survive on a grape or strawberry for a day? Or doesn't that count as 'basically'? I guess it's even a better 'right size' for small animals, they can live much longer on fruit than we. Heck, not to mention how long bacteria can live on one piece of fruit... doesn't that make the fruit even more 'the right size' for them? This does not say that evolution is thé answer, but nor does it prove that design/creationism is.


As stated by Larry, we are far from perfect for our environment. To clarify: Why can't we see all of the colorspectrum? Is infrared only priveledged for snakes and ultraviolet only for butterflies? We can't find our way in the dark either by screaming against the walls from meters away... I guess the designer only wanted bats to be able to do that. Why can't we sense blood from miles away like sharks, or smell food from hundreds of meters like wolves? We only notice a very very very very small part of the world around us.


Yes that makes sense, that's why we have been selected by natural selection, the animals that did had to think and do everything themselves had no time left to survive and got eaten... This of course does not prove that natural selection was really that what happened, but it doesn't prove God/Designer/Creationism either.


Even better, we have a living prove: Eclyse the zorse
It looks so strange that that has to be a hoax eh? Well she isn't
Imagine such a change from only one of, perhaps a few dozen of such mutations, would apply over billions of years.