Do you support the theory of evolution?

VSPrasad — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 03:57:48 GMT

The heart is effectively a syncytium, a meshwork of cardiac muscle cells interconnected by contiguous cytoplasmic bridges.

Do you think that such a sophisticated system
could have come into being due to evolution
of cells or lifeless chemicals?

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

Neta — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:09:31 GMT

Personally I don't think I have enough knowledge to intelligently support a stand, but intuitively I think evolution (and natural selection) can explain what and who we are today, even including the most complex organisms.

I thinks cells are not lifeless organs, and the even the most intricate systems gradually evolved from less complicated ones. The most interesting thing for me is the understanding that every system initially started pretty much the same, but reached a myriad of final results (or final so far - i don't think we've stopped, just that we lack the ability to have a broader perspective). The human eye is so different than the eye of the common fly for example. But they both provide a similar function.

I found the answer at ...

VSPrasad — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:28:13 GMT

The gymnarchus (Nile Knifefish) is a nocturnal fish and

has poor vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnarchus_niloticus

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/451

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/17/5/1761

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16339036

It uses an organ, which is similar to a radar, to
locate the prey it is chasing. For the radar system of
fishes to function properly, the receptors in the skin
that perceive electrical signals should be extremely
sensitive. Indeed, the gymnarchus can 'notice' a change
in the current intensity as small as 0.000 000 000 000
003 ampere. Such sensitivity enables the fish to
distinguish an ordinary gudgeon from bait in whose body
a man has hidden a tiny steel hook angler. It can steer
through very muddy water even at night using its radar.

Do you think that such an engineering marvel could
have come into being through evolution alone?

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

Neta — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:28:07 GMT

I think evolution has a lot to do with it, yes. Whether I BELIEVE evolution is the ONLY factor responsible, I'm not entirely decided yet. :-)

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

VSPrasad — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:56:19 GMT

The fossil record also shows a sudden,
inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of
both simple and complex life-forms. However,
if evolution were true, there would only be a
very gradual increase in both the numbers and
complexity of such organisms.

Regression of species: Since evolution is
supposed to be continual and random, we
should expect the same process that caused
the emergence of humans from apes to also
produce apes from humans. The law of natural
selection would not prevent this from
happening, because apes remain a stable life
form, able to survive current environmental
conditions.

Chromosomes. This is the most inexplicable
difference of all. Primates have 48
chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly
superior to them in a wide array of areas,
yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This
begs the question of how we could lose two
full chromosomes--which represents a lot of
DNA--in the first place, and in the process
become so much better.

The leading mathematicians in the century met
with some evolutionary biologists and
confronted them with the fact that according
to mathematical statistics, the probabilities
of a cell or a protein molecule coming into
existence were nil. They even constructed a
model of a large computer and tried to figure
out the possibilities of a cell ever
happening. The result was zero possibility! -
Wistar Institute, 1966.

Under normal circumstances, creatures give
birth to the same kind of creatures. It is
established scientific fact that like begets
like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo
is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that
differs in some respect from its parent.
Although a few mutations have been
scientifically observed that are beneficial,
most mutations produce inferior offspring.
For the theory of evolution to be true, there
must be a fantastic number of creative
mutations that produce new kinds of offspring
which are better suited for survival, and
therefore are favored by natural selection.
Mutations are harmful and deadly, not useful
as "evolution" requires. Cancer is an example
of a mutation.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

One of the most basic, fundamental laws of
science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
states that things in nature always tend to
dissolve and breakdown with the passage of
time, not grow more complex which would be
the case if evolution were true.

http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

hailey — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:46:15 GMT

Even we are evolving. If not physically and biologically then spiritually.

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

VSPrasad — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:34:22 GMT

I agree that we are evolving spiritually. But the

question refers to the theory of evolution by
Darwin and consolidated by his successors.

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

y0gi — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:14:12 GMT

I believe in evolution only to the extent that we get variations, e.g. different breeds of dogs. However the idea that everything evolved from single-celled organisms does not seem logical to me.

www.drdino.com

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

drydrtfrmer — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:22:37 GMT

RE: Do you support the theory of evolution?

DukeFan69 — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:59:53 GMT

No, I don't. I believe we were created by our Heavenly Father and I believe such after having examined accounts that support creation, such as Genesis 1:26,27. As complex as the human mind and body are, along with the precision of the universe, it would be hard to imagine that such perfection happened by chance.