quote:
It's my opinion that we have not yet identified the nature of the changes that are responsile for evolution. To believe that an entire human could be formed from random mutations is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
I agree. However, the ToE DOESN'T claim that random mutations alone could ever do such a thing. Natural selection is the exact opposite of randomness, and this is one of the mechanisms which drive which mutations are selected for. I thought you already understood this?
quote:
Look at yourself for a moment. You have extremely complex eyes,
Not as complex as other creatures'.
quote:
a fully developed though imperfect skeleton,
What does "fully developed" mean?
quote:
veins that pump blood from a heart, lungs that extract oxygen from the air and transfer this oxygen into your blood, which then carries the oxygen through your body.
The complexity of the human body alone is to great to contemplate. But to turn all these various features into random mutations is simply ludicrous.
Selected for by the environment over millions of years.
A little less personal incredulity and a little more research might be helpful to you.
quote:
How is it possible to "evolve" a heart?
The same way it is possible to evolve anything else. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" and the eye's evolution is very well-explained.
quote:
How could a cow suddenly be born with an extra stomach (if a cow were born with an extra stomach, it would die, as it would have no need for such an organ. And all this is assuming that the stomach is functional. A disfunctional second stomach would certainly kill the animal.)
Strawman argument. The ToE NEVER claims that a cow would ever be suddenly born with an extra stomach.
Every structure in every animal which survives is fully-formed and functional.
I think that you would do well to do a LOT more reading and study of this subject before rejecting it at the age of 12. Questioning and doubting is fine, but this personal incredulity begs for more information.
quote:
The issue of evolution is so vital to all aspects of science that it is scary. It explains are origin and the means by which we came into being.
No, it doesn't explain the origin of life.
quote:
To say "mutations created the diversity around us, but don't ask me how" is a sad and insufficient answer to such an enormous question.
That is not what the ToE says, as explained above.
quote:
We most certainly have the means to determine whether mutations could be responsible for the diversity we have today. The truth is, it is a stretch of faith to believe that mutations could create millions of species, all adapted for the world around us.
Read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be
inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
Also read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Do a search on "mutation" in this next link":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/science.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#pred22
[QUOTE]I'm not denying evolution- I'm denying mutations.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, you state a lot of wrong information. Perhaps more study?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
™ Version 4.2