2006-12-02 07:04:36 · 31 answers · asked by stone 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Remember it IS only a theory.
Why should evolution not be part of a design plan, though? (Just don't swallow evolution whole...the horse evolved from an eohippus ... the size of a rabbit??!!)
2006-12-02 07:11:51 · answer #1 · answered by alan h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing destroys the theory of evolution-scientific theories tend to be challenged and modified rather than destroyed but hey why worry about technicalities like that when you are spreading a religious ideology called creationism. In any case even if you did by some miracle disprove the mechanisms of Darwinian theory the fact of biological evolution would remain unchallenged but the creationists don't grasp that fact.
2006-12-02 15:10:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are a few theories of evolution going about. I'm sure the ones you're reading about on the Creationist sites can readily be demolished by just about anything, including common sense. However, the ones that scientists favor are quite solidly supported by these complex structures.
2006-12-02 15:09:36 · answer #3 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hroof? Squibbit? Supposedly, structures like DNA can't just happen, no matter how many organic precursors and catalysts you put into the ocean. The leading theory is that it was probably something like RNA, which is significantly simpler and could, in theory, act as an organism composed of only one molecule. We see catalytic RNA all over the place, such as ribosomes which read mRNA from the nucleus, grabs free RNA molecules bonded to proteins called tRNA, and turn it into a polypeptide in protein synthesis in every cell of the human body. You also have "ribozymes", which are RNA molecules that act as enzymes to catalyze various reactions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosomes
Creationists usually try a probability argument that ignores the sheer vastness of the universe and the weak anthropic principle. Evolutionists usually bring up the many worlds theory:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
At which point half the creationists can't understand what you're saying and the other 50% just ignore it and start throwing Bible quotes about how I will go to hell for questioning. I have been through this debate so many times that I gave up. Take it or leave it, the links are there for anybody who wants to understand.
2006-12-02 15:22:47 · answer #4 · answered by Wise1 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, it would help if you were more specific about *what* complex structures, *what* you mean by "ancient," and *what* creatures...
But even without that required information I can answer your question: there has never been a single fossil found that damages the theory of evolution, and in fact every single fossil found has either provided further evidence for the theory as fact, or provided new information that has helped refine our knowledge of a particular era so we better understand the mechanisms and timescales of evolution.
2006-12-02 15:08:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
No one has time to chase after more nonsense from have baked religious science where you start with god and work backwards to a theory. Religious science that claims that terms like creator and supernatural has nothing to do with religion. How anyone can participate in such unethical lies and outright evil deception is beyond me. But if you or anyone else is willing to not ignore the billions of bits of proof that creationists hav from the last 40 or so years then you may go to the follow web site, www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
2006-12-04 05:22:45 · answer #6 · answered by zeroartmac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ummm cos trilobite eyes are so complicated and compounded (multiple eyes) that there's no other like it that far back in the Devonian layers where life is thought to have begun. The whole eye thing about eye evolution is a subject unto its self. Since there's no way of the creature knowing how it would or time to react to evolution. And the vast majority of creatures have eyes. FISH MAMMALS BIRDS AND SO ON. Trilobites complex eyes so early on at so called evolution is a thorn in the side of evolutionists. SO THERE!!!!! mWHA ha ha ha ha ha
2006-12-02 15:10:45 · answer #7 · answered by : 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow I don't know but they really put a cramp in my belief. All the complexity is too much for me. This must prove against my every better judgment the Existence of God and all his creations. What can we do dear Atheist our entire belief system has been destroyed. How does anyone know how much time it takes to reach complexity. It didn't take God much time to reach complexity 7 days lol.
Merry Christmas. XX Betty.
2006-12-02 15:13:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think many scientist believe that the complexity observed requires more time to develop. The 4.5 billion years currently used does not give enough time to reach complexity. The odds are dramatically against evolution. It would require a miracle to even get it started.
2006-12-02 15:12:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They don't. Evolution is a fact. And the theory of evolution by natural selection hasn't had a fault in it since Darwin proposed it. Say no to jesus
2006-12-02 15:12:31 · answer #10 · answered by Say no to jesus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what do you mean by the most complex stutrure of the most ancient creatures? all of the ancient creatures (when living things first appeared) were prokaryotes (this means that they were like bacteria) and they have VERY simple structures (only 1 cell) and if they are ancient that probably means that they are extinct, which menas that their structure wasn't very good and so they died
2006-12-02 15:08:23 · answer #11 · answered by Ryujin 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋