Pope Benedict XVI said the debate between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith. “They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1995696...on-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/#.UM0WU5X9HOh
I'm coming back late to this thread and as I said I am not an expert on this matter but other posters have comment on the matter. One thing you seem to be misreading in my posts is that I am talking about a change in the genetic makeup when I am talking about the opposite. As others have noted Epigenetic theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_Theory, is about the idea that environment has an effect on the expression of genes. As you note this isn't exactly a new theory but our understanding of it is greatly increasing based on understanding what had been previously thought of as junk DNA. All my point was is that in organisms with very complex genomes there does appear to be a lot of robustness in the expressions of traits that lead to adaptions in particular environments without random mutations to the genome driving it.
Also Evolution isn't a theory about why the universe came to be. That would be physics while Evolution is biology.
I agree to an extent that 'survival' isn't the best fitting term, but the genetic processes for every organism come with different ways to spread their genes. For example, some bacteria can dump fragments of their DNA for other bacteria to take in and incorporate. Even terms like 'good' or 'bad' is totally dependent upon environment. Sickle cell can benefit areas heavily stricken by malaria or someone highly sensitive to sunlight could still thrive in a purely artificial setting. If we're playing big odds, more diversity is better for species survival than less diversity, but if you're on the ground with others of your kind, you might individually shy away or fight against more diversity. It's most visibly useful should a comet hit the earth or some other catastrophic change in the environment. But that change is still happening on some level.
There is proof that evolution does occur within species and such, but there is no proof that life began at a single celled organism. If you state that evolution is not a theory about the creation of the universe, then why does it require the atheism/religion and evolutionist/creationist argument? It seems to be an apples to oranges comparison. What bothers me is the notion that life began with evolution is being taught as absolute certainty and not as a hypothesis. Quite frankly, evolution has many more flaws in it than answers. It is far more likely that a higher lifeform (aliens, god, ect...) planted life over evolution surviving billions of harsh years. It doesn't take much to kill most forms of life and I seriously doubt this planet survived or missed a few massive meteors over these billions of years.
Since when is evolution being taught as the "beginning of all life"? <br> Also, 85% of America is stupid as hell. But, that was pretty obvious to begin with.
It isn't hypothesis it's scientific theory. It doesn't have more flaws than answers. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying. Would you like to point out the flaws with evolution? Whether or not evolution was planted by a higher life form doesn't change the fact that evolution is scientific theory.
Once again, this is the problem. 1. EVOLUTION IS NOT A HYPOTHESIS. The word "theory" in this context does not mean something we're guessing at. Evolution is real. Period. 2. EVOLUTION DOES NOT ASSUME TO EXPLAIN HOW LIFE BEGAN. Evolution is a genetic concept and deals with how traits are passed down, and allows us to see how certain organisms are related to each other i.e. which share a common ancestor. 3. You sure do assume to know so much about something you obviously know so little about. 'it is more likely that aliens planted life?" except for, you know, the scientific proof that we have. So you just randomly know that the earth has been hit by a bunch of meteors. You accept your hunches over 100s of years of proven scientific fact. You are whats holding us back.
Wait, what the ****? How, exactly did you come to that conclusion? Most absurd statement of the thread.
What disturbs me is that you don't seem to understand language of science and either ignorantly or willfully distort meanings to suit your bias. Please read the link and educate yourself as to what those words you keep using truly mean. Also, please humor us with one or two of your favorite flaws in evolution. I'm sure they're culled from some talking point list on answers in genesis or the like, but who knows, maybe you have something new. As for the meteor thing, surely someone as well-versed as you claim to be knows of the Chicxulub crater, its cause and effects, no? Ask the dinosaurs how that worked out for them. Ask the 99.9+% species that have ever existed on this pale blue dot how other events, big and small, have killed them off. Be happy that every direct ancestor your ever had managed to survive and reproduce in order for you to question the process that led to you being able to question the process. Again, please read the link and learn the language. Don't just skim it, read it, understand it, grok it.
Evolution is biology while creation of universe is cosmology. 2 different branches of science and one has nothing do with the other. Evolution is NOT the reason why people are atheist and as others has pointed out, it does not have a say about the origins of life. If you are interested in that, read up on Abiogenesis. Evolution/Creationist debates occur because of a bible claim (adam and eve) while the other argument "Big Bang", refutes the biblical claim as to how this universe was created (7 days and in a specific order)
I'm not an atheist, agnostic or practitioner of a major religion so my view if people would stop trying to defend the Bible at all costs, they'd realize that atheists and others who question the idea of God may at least take them more serious. It doesn't have to be so black and white and even if the Theory of Evolution isn't quite right (which is different than the process of evolution), it doesn't prove the Juedo-Christian interpretation of the start of life either. That's why I say a higher power created life and leave it at that.
I've read about this here and there, judo, and I'm struck by just how much we still don't understand. It seems like every time we (humanity) think we're getting a grasp of how things work, we discover something that confuses the hell out of everyone. This "junk DNA" stuff is a real trip. As you pointed out, it isn't "junk" at all.
We've had a better grasp on it than gets reported and these "new" discoveries hardly confuse the hell out of most scientists working in the field. Sure, there are some, "ah hah!" or "that's unusual..." moments, but it's nearly always within the framework of what's already known. I loathe the term "junk" DNA. It's essentially propagated by lazy journalists and some attention whores. If you actually look at the scientific literature, there is a long and rich history of research into "junk" DNA going back decades and there are loads of papers speculating about the nature of it and presenting hypotheses (and evidence) regarding functions in non-coding DNA. It's troubling that a group of media whores has all but created a niche for themselves by ignoring all of this and trumpeting their own "discoveries" by ignoring all that came before them, as if they are proposing some ground-breaking paradigm shift. Combine them with lazy, scientifically-illiterate media and you get these "revelations" constantly. You'd think at least some journalists would start to figure out that these things happen all the time, but of course it generates click-traffic so they don't truly care.
I'm willing to bet that people who don't believe in evolution, also aren't very familiar with these guys... Spoiler Here's another picture that better depicts the human lineage (evolution) ... well at least within the genus 'homo' Spoiler
