Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Firstly, a good scientist should try to fit theories to science, not the other way round. Evolution theory is a THEORY and nothing more. People are always offering up slightly different versions, tweaking here and there (most recent famous example is Richard Dawkin's "Selfish Gene"). Creationism starts with a theory and attempts to fit every piece of scientific evidence to it. In my opinion this is bad science.Secondly, in my experience creationists ask questions of belief that don't apply to science. I'm always hearing thinks like "Do you really want to believe that you were descended from apes?". I don't want to believe that some people could go into a school and kill children. I don't want to believe that people get bombed to pieces in the name of freedom. I don't want to believe that millions of people have been killed because of their religion. But it all happens.Finally, I find that creationists go out of their way to find an element of evolutionary theory that doesn't quite make sense, and use this to renounce the whole process. The rules of chemistry say that substances should get denser as they get colder. However, water is most dense at 4 degrees C, and exands below that. This doesn't mean that all chemistry is wrong!WhirlwindPS I do know why water expands below 4 degrees!

but I feel obliged to point out this almost idiotic item:

quote:

---

Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures. Scaly cold-blooded reptiles produce other scaly cold-blooded reptiles, not warm-blooded creatures with hair or feathers. Any cell that reproduces asexually produces 2 identical offspring (1 produces 2). Whereas any creature that reproduces sexually has a mother AND a father (2 produce 1). There seems to be no reason to get from one to the other, nor has such a thing ever been observed. A seedless plant produces seedless plants. A plant that produces seeds comes from a plant that produces seeds. Yet again we see no violation of this in nature, but evolution rests on such absurd ideas as all plants sharing a common ancestor, bacterial cells evolving into multicellular organisms, mammals that produce live-young evolving from creatures that laid eggs, etc.

---

No one is suggesting that one day a fish gave birth to a thing with legs. It is possible that over a period of millions of years, a fish would give birth to another fish that had little structures that would have had the slightest resemblence to legs, and if these 'legs' give that organism an advantage it will pass down those genes to the next generation. I don't like dwelling ona specific example, but isn't there a species which looks a lot like a fish with legs in the Amazon rainforest?Also, most multicellular organisms undergo mitosis and meiosis. In humans, all cells divide mitotically except the cells that divide to give eggs and sperm. In fact, in Bryophyta (moss), its the other way around! Most cells are haploid (one set of chromosomes) while the reproductive ones are diploid! Nature provides almost any genetic variation you can think of.Edited by Whirlwind, : No reason given.