coyote writes:
Micro-evolution is accepted by pretty much everyone. Macro-evolution is denied by fundamentalists on religious grounds, but accepted by biologists and other scientists most familiar with the field.
Most scientist believed in a supernatural creation before the "enlightenment". Natural variation is an obvious design feature. Without the ability of organisms to adapt there would be no life at all. Macro evolution is not denied by fundamentalists on grounds of religion but on empirical analysis. Science doesn't show macro-evolution, belief does. Your belief is 200 years old, mine is 6 thousand. It doesn't matter what a scientist believes but what he explains using repeatable experiments, not philosophy.
coyote writes:
And your analogy, like the tornado in a junkyard, fails because living organisms don't react in the same way as do manufactured items. Not even close. Living organisms change minutely with each generation, and those changes are acted upon by the environment. This diversity, interacting with the environment, is often referred to as natural selection. I have yet to see random parts in a junkyard, or even at Intel, evolve on their own.
I'm going to stick my head out here but consider this:
3.10
9 base pairs for a human genome. With a 97% similarity with the apes.
That is 2.9*10
9 differences. Lets halve this to get to the supposed branch. So we have 1.4*10
9 changes. That is at least 1 forward change per year without a reverse change over 1.4 billion years. That is simply ridiculous. And that is only the "supposed" change from ape to human. Look at the probability of rock to human in 4 billion years. Not possible.
There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal