What i can't understand about evolution....

The foundation of the theory of Evolution CAN be called a fact. The foundation of the theory of evolution is the fact that allele frequrncies in a population change over time. The theory of evolution says nothing about the arisal of the first life form, it only comes into play after life has formed. That's becasue you are wrong. You said life-forms, not species. It is. Notice how you said gradual. So, you can;t have an entirely new species getting born to a now existing species, that wouldn't be gardual. Again, that's because you are wrong. Indeed they did. You'll have to excuse me for not knowing the exact daetails, but I believe you are wrong, ther have been numerous experiments done, and they all confiremed the Urey-Miller experiment, and even refined it. Like I said I can't provide the details, so you'll have to ask someone else to provide them for you. By no means take my word for it though. How DNA evolves is very well known. How it originated maybe not (don;t know about it anyway) but taht has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing to do with evolution. Everything pertaining to this has to do with abiogenesis. Yes, because they've been told lies about it, and don;t understand what it really says. What is the mechanism that stops it going over the species boundary? So, would you say the "parrot species" has a different ancestor then the "chicken species"? Actually, we are VERY similar. So, why does it stop when getting to the "species level"? In fact, the evolution of new species has been observed, so no matter what you answer here, you're allready wrong.

---

I hunt for the truth

So, do you doubt the bible? If not, why not? There isn't exactly much evidence for most of the claims it makes. So, if parents don't agree with the fact that the earth is round, should their children not be taught this? What about the holocaust? There are people who deny it happened, should their children be taught it didn't happen? May I then ask how you came about your erroneous view of evolution? Then why do you dismiss it out of hand? I am. First of all, I hold no beliefs, I base my views on facts.
Second, if there's no evidence for something, I'm not going to call it a fact. If god would have been very clear about his existence, and left evidence everywhere, he could count me in. The simple fact of the matter is, he didn't leave a single shred. Now, when we look to evolution, there's overwhelming evidence for it, despite your denying it. Now I ask you what conclusions should I draw from these two givens? It is. The fact you reject it, or don't understand it (evidenced by the fact you called homo habilis a chimp) doesn't change this. As it should. It's not the websites fault some people have their eyes closed to The Truth (tm). What makes you think evolution is not compatible with god? It's perhaps not compatible with a literal reading of genesis. But genesis could've been a lie by men about god. And the writers of genesis are now burning in hell. What makes you think that god and evolution are incompatible?

---

I hunt for the truth

If you haven’t ever done science, then how can you critisize it? You don’t know anything about it by your own admission, yet you think you know more? How is that not arrogance? While I do object to those statements, as they have far too much finality to it, they are basically true. So, why should we not proclaim the truth? Not at all, question it all you like, but don’t dismiss evidence because you don’t like it, come up with legitimate reasons for it. Of course the theory has changed, so has every other theory out there. Why do you trust the theory of gravity, yet not the theory of evolution? The theory of gravity has changed far more then the theory of evolution ever has. And there aren’t really that many “schools of thought”within evolution. Of course they’re the only ones who can understand it. How can you understand something you haven’t studied? Which is why I keep telling people to study it. Not understanding something is fine, claiming that you do understand it when you don’t isn’t. No, but those that don’t shouldn’t tell everyone that they do uinderstand it. Unless you want to study it and prove them wrong, why shouldn’t you accept it? Do you have any indication they are unreliable? Not really, no. They’re not. If evidence is found that contradicts it, the theory will be changed to fit it, or, if that is not possible, an entirely new theory will be made. No, only creationism is, since it has no evidence for it. Which is not what evolution is about. Do you doubt gravity because it hasn’t answered the question where matter comes from? Actually, it’s just different studies that occupy themselves with those question, go critisize them if you have a problem with what they claim, not evolution. I can understand, but since you don’t know enough about it, how can you claim it is false?
Also, could the creator not have used evolution to get the result we see today? No it doesn’t, that’s abiogenesis, or in the last case, panspermia. How do you know? That also has nothing to do with evolution. How can you disagree with something you know nothing about? Evolution is not AKA genetics, they’re two completely different studies. However genetics did confirm the predictions of evolution. Further, what would make the changing halt at the species level? Genetics. Of course, in the 150 years since Darwin, there have been no further discoveries in the fossil record . ..Oh wait, there have been. Of course, incomplete organisms can’t survive.

---

I hunt for the truth

Peg, it isn't based on that. It's based on the fact that allele frequency in a population changes over time. No it doesn't, that has nothing to do with evolution. Life could've been made by aliens, god whatever you can think of, after that evolution took over. But it has nothing to do with evolution. This is wrong, where did the original life form come from, if it can only come from other life? The reason they steer clear of it is because they are two completely different things. But evolution IS the origin of species, not the origin of life. Not really, since evolution IS the origin of all species. Then you accept it completely, because it has nothing to do with the origin of life. Yes it is, speciation has been observed, both in nature and in labs. But it's not true, as pointed out, speciation has been observed. And a "kind" is not the same as species, or, if it is, new kinds have been ovserved to evolve. Yes it does. Why would they need to do that? The definition of a species is organisms that can produce fertile offspring together, if they cant do that they're not the same species. And, to make it even more confusing, two different species CAN produce offspring sometimes, do mules ring a bell? All very nice questions, but they have nothing to do with evolution. What the hell are you talking about? where does it say that? You see, this is the problem Peg, because you haven't studied evolution, you have all these things in your head that evolution doesn't claim happens, yet you think it does say this. Now, if you don't study it, yet continue to say it says this, you do indeed come off as ignorant of the theory, because basically, you are. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about something, but when told time and again you are wrong on something, yet refuse to study the subject, it becomes a problem. How do you know it's not supposed to do that, you haven't studied it, and judging by your comments, you don't even know what it says.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hello Wardog, and welcome back. Just a few quick points. Ask if you want me to elaborate, Instead of benign, I'd use the word neutral. Benign means good, yet something with no effect can't be said to be good, right? {ABE}As Percy pointed out in Message 290 your use of the wrod IS correct. I retract this statement. It's far from perfectly designed, nor is it symmetrical. It doesn't, that's why it isn't. But far from mutation making our body shape, you forget the other mechanism involved, natural selection.As a final note, I would like you to provide the sources for your statements. As they are now,, they are nothing but assumptions, and all I have to do is say they aren't true, and we're on equal footing again.Edited by Huntard, : Added the rad stuff

---

I hunt for the truth

No, in fact I still don't see it. Yes, if life can only come from life, then it should always have existed, this is abviously not the case, so it must've come from something that wasn't "alive". Whether it was poofed into existence or through chemical processes, it wasn't always there. No it doesn't. What part of "evolution is NOT about the origin of life" don't you understand? That's why I said that life can't just come from other life. Not necesarily, but this could be the case, yes.

---

I hunt for the truth

Ah, well yeah, not my native language and all. Ok, his use of the word was correct. I retract my statement.

---

I hunt for the truth

Because evolution doesn't care how life began, it could've been any way you can think of. God could've done it, it could've been chemical processes, but so far we don't know, and for evolution, it doesn't matter. We do have some indication that chemical processes could be responsible, but not yet a fully developed theory. So for now, I'm sticking with: "I don't know". Ok, good. That's a very important step. I have no idea. Nor is it important for evolution. It's likely we will never know what came before, but that we're going to find out how it could've happened. But for now, a definitive answer is lacking. This however does not mean that you can discard evolution any more then you can discard nuclear physics, gravity and a whole bunch of other scientific theories that don't explain the origins of the things rthey are describing, but do describe how these things work.

---

I hunt for the truth

As was pointed out the term "lower" is wrong. As for why they aren't here anymore, they weren't suited to survive in the environment they were in.

---

I hunt for the truth

No problem, here to help and all. But speciation has been observed to happen, both in the wild and in a lab. By speciation, I mean that descendants from a parent population are unable to breed with other descendants from the same parent population and that they vary genetically. Speciation in bacteria is measured somewhat differently I believe, but I don't know a lot about that. Perhaps not, but the problem is that there is no evidence for such a being existing. As the first cause for the original life, no, we can't (yet ). As a cause for every single species, yes, we can.

---

I hunt for the truth

Because they were perfectly suited to survive in the environment they were in, just like crocodiles, who didn't evolve much either for millions of years.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hello again Peg. Yes. We don't know every single organism that ever lived, and the farther back you go, the harder it is to get the organisms. Especially when there aren't any "hard" parts to fosilize. So, when we get to single cell life, that will probbaly never be found. I of course mean the ancestral single cell life, I know there are "modern" single cell organisms, but they are probably very different from those earliest lifeforms.

---

I hunt for the truth

That's not ALL evolution is though, again you forget natural selection, that's a very big part of the whole. No it isn't. Speciation has been observed. We can't replicate everything that ever happened, as others have pointed out quite well.Peg, if you want my advice, take Modulous's offer. I think you'll learn a lot from him. Just remember, that evolution happening and being true has NOTHING to do with there being a god or not. It is only contradictory to a literal reading of the bible, which you don't do anyway.

---

I hunt for the truth

Proof? Nothing. Evidence however, that's plentifull. And what in this is NOT evidence of natural selection at work? First because of the drought the beak size increases, then when everything returns to normal, the larger beaks aren't necessary any more, and they gradually return to what they were before. Natural selection if I ever saw it.

---

I hunt for the truth