there are two kinds of evolution, i.e. Macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution (one species mutating into a different, more advanced species) is an unproven theory. Microevolution (take the acricle about the bacteria) is where one organism in a species gains/loses a trait due to tiny differences in genetic code when reproduced. Microevolution is a scientifically proven Law but no matter how much time you give it, N generations later, it will still be the same organism. Not a new species.



Since you say the mere chance is excluded how was life supposedly started billions of years ago? even now scientists cannot create life, I seriously doubt anyone/anything could back then. Unless that anyone was an intelligent, supernatural being.
And no, even if scientists could create life in a test tube, that doesn't prove Evolution. If decades of research up until now, and (supposing it possible) decades more for scientists to succeed, how could mere chance string all the exact chemicals together in the exact amounts in the exact place all at the same time all of a sudden? Take for amino acids in proteins as an example. The simplest protein in life is Ribonuclease and is comprised of a sequence of 124 amino acids. The order of the amino acids is EXACT. Any kind of change in the order/type of amino acids in the protein would nullify it. It just plain would not work. How could all the necessary amino acids needed for all the different proteins manditory for even the simplest single-celled organism all jumble together in the correct order, place and time? And that's a simple protein. The average protein is comprised of several thousand amino acids all in order!



How does the cartoon relate to TriNitroToluene's statement? In this case it is certainly right to say "don't be so arrogant." You think you're completely backed by science and that we're relying on 'village wizards' telling us legends myths? These are not myths. The Bible has not been proven true in all parts, but it certainly has not been proven false either. Some parts have been proven true, (the ark existed for example) and some parts havn't (i.e. Moses separating the Red Sea). Understand both sides of the debate before joining in yourself.



Have you even looked for evidence? Or are you like everyone else who brushes away any slight hint and God saying it will be disproved later by science.



Now you're just making fun, not actually contributing to this discussion.



What makes you think we believe a chihuahua came from a wolf? God created different types of dog. Perhaps a medium-sized dog, through breeding with other dog types could result in a slightly smaller offspring. Perhaps a few generations later the hair color, curl etc. changed, resulting in the chihuahua. Like I said above, microevolution resulting in new types of a certain organism is a proven scientific law, but no matter how much time goes by, the offspring will still be a dog.



It may be a brand new one but again it's just microevolution helped along by scientists. They use existing DNA from existing organisms. In essence all they are doing is a form of cross-breeding. It's a new type of organism but it's traits come from it's 'parents'



Anyway, after replying to the above I would like to add one more thing.

A comparison of some organism's cytochrome C structure:

Cytochrome C
comparison between a
lamprey eel and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Horse | 15% |
|Pigeron | 18$ |
|Turtle | 18% |
|Carp | 12% |


Cytochrome C
comparison between
a carp and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Horse | 13% |
|Pigeron | 14$ |
|Turtle | 13% |
|Lamprey | 12% |


Cytochrome C
comparison between
a pigeon and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Horse | 11% |
|Carp | 14$ |
|Turtle | 8% |
|Lamprey | 18% |


Cytochrome C
comparison between
a horse and
others
____________________
|Organism | %diff |
|-----------------|
|Pigeon | 11%|
|Turtle | 11$|
|Carp | 13%|
|Lamprey | 15%|

Cytochrome C is a protein which takes part in cellular metabolism. I won't go into the details, but every species' cytochrome C is slightly different since every species requires it to do slightly different things. Now if a single-cell evolved into a fish and the fish into a frog and the frog into a reptile etc. the cytochrome C of the fish would be similar to the frog, the cytochrome C of the frog similar to the reptile and so on. The above tables show that it's simply not the case. Evolution would say the eel came first, then the fish then the amphibians then reptiles then birds then horses. If that were so the eel's genetic code would be similar to the fish, the fish similar to the frog, the frog's similar to the reptile and the reptile similar to the bird and the bird similar to the horse. The table shows the eel is most similar to the carp, but then the next similar organism is the horse and is equally similar to the turtle and the pigeon. How would you explain that? It's clear from this information that the Theory of Evolution has some big obsticles to overcome before you can even think about making it a scientific law.




Agreed. Except that "the validity of Creationism can be simply proved by exclusiton."