Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
http://www.geocities.com/astraeaaradia/creationevolution.html
Creation vs. evolution is a subject I've been asked about more often than any other. I'm just now getting around to explaining my own views, basically because I knew I'd actually have to take a little time to type out my explanation, and I'm always pressed for time! With most other subjects, I usually just jump on and type out my views in five or ten minutes and think, if nobody likes my opinion, who cares? But this subject is debated so often that I want to make sure my thoughts are clear and I'm able to project them properly. I actually wrote an article for another website two years ago and most of this information runs exactly parallel with it, with a bit of spontaneous thought added here and there. My beliefs really have not changed regarding this subject.
First of all, I don't believe in the theory of evolution. Not Darwin's theory, anyway. Whether or not certain plants, animals, etc., have evolved in some way over the years, I dont' actually know and it isn't really a concern of mine at this point. But, as for Darwin's theory, I think it's a load of crap. My father has worked in the field of science (archeology, marine biology) for some twenty-odd years, so I've had a lot of opportunities to research and develop my own views on this theory. I was taught from an early age that every idea should be contested and researched- not just taken as fact. I was taught that simply hearing one side of a story cannot be sufficient reason to believe anything. On the other hand, I've also been taught that some of the most intelligent and some of the wisest people who have ever lived were wise because of their faith. So, I've taken all these things into consideration while developing my opinions of creation and evolution.
The most significant problem (for me) with Darwin's theory of evolution, is the problem of genetic improbability. Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem that any species could possibly mutate in such drastic ways in the time available (supposedly billions of years). According to most scientists, the minimum number of mutations that are necessary for a new structure in a species is five. But, to add to that, each of these mutations must be of the right type and also affect five genes that are functionally related. Mutations of any type occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (but many scientists believe even far less frequently). If we are to assume that the first living organism had 10,000 genes, which is the same number as E. coli, one mutation would exist for every 10 cells. Add to that, the fact that only approximately one out of every 1,000 mutations is non-harmful (does not cause death or serious functional problems). In this case, there would be only 1 non-harmful mutation for every 10,000 cells. The odds that this mutation would even effect a particular gene is one in 10,000. With that in mind, there must be a population of 100,000,000 genes in order to have a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
The odds of a singe cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific functionally related genes is beyond astronomical. If one-hundred trillion bacteria were produced every SECOND for five billion years, the resulting population would still be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what is needed for a non-harmful mutation of a species. And these are only the odds of getting a non-harmful mutation. In order for a new structure to be produced, all these mutations must integrate and function perfectly with one another. The odds of this have been computed to be 1 in ten to the three-hundred thousanth power. In other words, evolution is a scientific improbability. To me it's beyond that- it's basically impossible.
No matter how much an organism changes, it is still the same organism as when it started. Organisms are genetically altered by scientists on a regular basis, and are even said to be "drastically altered," but in the end, they still remain the same type of organism. Sheep do not become birds, reptiles do not become dogs, dogs do not become horses, etc. Science today says it is not possible for a species to change drastically enough to become a completely different species. Yet, people are willing to believe that they HAVE changed drastically over the period of so many years.
I know that is probably a bit hard to follow, but it does make absolute sense. This is information that I've read in tons of books, researched myself, and also have heard from scientists in college, who worked with my father, and so on. Most scientists that I have met will admit that the theory of evolution is scientifically improbable and basically impossible. But, their reason for accepting it is because there is no other scientific explanation as to where we all came from. Stupid reason to accept something, in my opinion, but I'm not a scientist and don't feel pressured to believe such nonsense.
Some people ask me, "Your dad is a scientist, what about all those skeletal remains of 'prehistoric man' that have been found?" Well, there actually has never been proof that we have evolved from any of these supposed races of humans. The skeletal remains that have been found were only assumed by scientists to be of races of man that eventually evolved. There is no proof that this is even possible. The skulls and other skeletal parts of many men today are extremely different from one another. Compare the skull of an Asian man with that of an African man. Compare the skull of a Scottish man with that of a Native American. Compare a skull of a man with down-syndrome to one without. Or compare my skull to my neighbor's! We're all physically different, it's a fact. Difference in skeletal appearance is not grounds for assumtion that humans have evolved from apes or "ape-like" men of the past.
?
