How can evolution be possible? More info in the description.?

Question

Considireing the very rare possiblity that earth just luckily fell into place at the perfect distance from the sun, and with perfect conditions for life. And that after this happened amino acids simply fell into place and made a protein, which later got together with other parts to form a living organism with DNA, how is it possible that:
Macroevolution (The theory that everything came from a common ancestor a.k.a. simply evolution) is real when a 1 celled animal can only pass on the DNA it already has through asexual reproduction? Consider that a 1 celled animal that reproduces asexualy will pass on the same DNA and produce an identical clone of itself, which cannot have adapted to the enviroment, as it is a clone. If this is true according to science then how did all living things come from that 1 cell?
Why challenge the LAW of creation with the THEORY of evolution?
I thought scientific laws could never be challenged unless you were uneducated. (a.k.a. not smart.)

Answer 1

I've never seen proof of evolution, really. And yeah... it's a theory.
I've never seen God, but I've seen, heard, expierienced, sensed, and loved the proof of his love and exsistance.

And... where did that 1 cell come from? hehe...

I'm both amazed at what God has created and amazed at how people don't believe it.

Did you know that Darwin was studying to be a minister before his son died and he blamed it on God, vowing to live his life to prove God wrong instead of accepting the love and mercy God wanted to show him?

Score 1 Jesus
0 Devil

Hoorah.

Answer 2

"just luckily fell into place at the perfect distance from the sun, and with perfect conditions for life. "

this is wrong, there a numerous planets in our solar system, some are too cold, some are too hot for life, the earth just happens to be the one located where life is possible, there is nothing magical about this


"Consider that a 1 celled animal that reproduces asexually will pass on the same DNA and produce an identical clone of itself, which cannot have adapted to the enviroment, as it is a clone"

this is also wrong, asexual reproduction does not result in a perfect copy and DNA is constantly mutating, there is no such thing as a perfect copy

Answer 3

First off, most of what you are talking about isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis and the Big Bang. The earth doesn't need to fall "perfectly" into place. It simply has to be within a range that supports life, then the life adapts to that specific environment. Given all the planets and stars out there it is not only possible, but probable that many will be able to sustain life. Then given all these planets that could sustain life, it is also probable that at least one will form life. The right conditions might take millions of year to take place, but eventually those perfect conditions will create amino acids and RNA which can lead to single celled organisms. then those single celled organisms (presumably through mutation) can evolve.

Answer 4

If you believe that stars are just dots in the firmament, then your argument makes sense. If you believe that there are billions and billions of possible earths, the odds that the sequence of events that leads to life become much more reasonable.

As far as macroevolution, you are apparently unaware that DNA can mutate, that one celled animals can exchange DNA or incorporate other DNA into themselves, or that unactivated DNA can accumulate and later become active. All of these could lead to modification of the original DNA.

As far as your "law of creation", just to pick one example out of a multitude, why would god design your eye with a blind spot when, if he didn't have to worry about the many evolutionary stages in the development of an eye, he could very easily have attached nerves to the back end of the rods and cones so that the optic nerve didn't have to go through the retina. A pretty stupid design for an intelligent designer.

Go in peace to love and serve the truth.

Answer 5

You are confusing you bias that somethings, that actually happened, are somehow highly improbable with the reality of evolution, which simply provides a well accepted explanation of how species developed.

The fact that you don't like the idea of evolution, probably because of your religious indoctrination, speaks volumes about your closed mind and says nothing about evolution. You have decided you know what is true and all you are doing is trying to pick apart something that is far larger than you even imagine.

You are also showing your ignorance about one cell animals, which can reproduce both asexually and sexually.

The problem with your "Law of Creation" is that there is no way to verify it. It is not scientific, only religious nonsense.

You haven't proven that you are educated. Just the opposite.

Belief does not create truth. It creates ignorance.

Answer 6

There are no scientific laws. The term 'laws' was used by scientists who still did not quite understand the full implications of the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method as we know it (Research, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, publish, repeat) only happened in the past hundred years or so.

For example, Newton called his work the Laws of Gravity ... but Einstein came along and we found out that Newton was wrong (88 seconds of deviation in mercury's orbit was proof). Thermodynamics in most modern physics books is no longer refered to as a Law. In fact, law is being replaced entirely in science, because law implies proof, but in science, nothing can be proven.

For example, I hold in my hand a black velvet bag that you cannot see through. I tell you it contains marbles, and I ask you to guess what color they are. You have no idea, you've seen none of the marbles, so you randomly guess, "They're all red." This is a guess, not even a hypothesis -- you have done no research short of being told there were marbles.

I allow you to reach in and pull one, and only one, out of the bag. I make sure you do not see any of the other marbles while you do so. When you look at it, it is red. I take the marble and put it back in the bag. You have a small bit of information that says 'red' is a decent guess, so now you can call it a hypothesis. But this doesn't prove all of them are red.

I allow you to continue pulling out one marble and then put it back in the bag. Your hand tells you while its in the bag that there are about a hundred marbles. After 100 pulls, you've never seen a marble any color but red. You might have drawn a marble twice, so you still can't say with 100% certainty that all of them are red. You draw 10,000 times, and they're all red.

This would be pretty convincing. You could now say, "The odds are so against a non-red marble that I consider it a fact that all are red." But you don't know it, you haven't proven it... in fact, to prove it, you'd have to see every single marble all at once -- and the bag (and the universe) won't let you see it all at once.

On your 10,001 draw ... you get a blue marble. Now, were you wrong to state that you considered it a fact all were red? No... that IS what in fact you considered, because the evidence overwhelmingly supported that conclusion. However, with this new information, you know that your initial theory is wrong. So you may adjust, maybe, "There are many red marbles and a few blue marbles." You could test this by continuing to draw until you got a non-red/non-blue marble, which would disprove your updated theory -- so your theory is falsifiable.

After a million draws, you notice a disturbing fact -- even though there are only 100 marbles in the bag, the statistics are telling you only one in 10,000 marbles are blue. This means something much more complicated is going on. So you'd have to come up with a new hypothesis and a new way to test, and if the experiments supoprted that, you'd have a new theory that explains ALL your past experiences PLUS the new ones.

But you could never PROVE the status of all the marbles without seeing all of them. So you would never have a Law... only a cycle of hypothesis, test, theory...

Answer 7

so that 1 celled "animal" didn't contact with anything else? Come on....

Law of creation????????? Where is that stated?

I really wish people would quit trying to mix Religion in with Science. It doesn't work. Science is not out to disprove or even prove a Deity exists... or that the Deity did or did not Create the material that is here..... Science is used to show What happened to the material once it started "growing" on earth.

So instead of trying to make it look like Science is against Religion... why not quote some scientists who are actually disproving Evolution? I'd like to see their names and what they say... as most of what I have read shows that most scientists agree that Evolution does happen. Only people who view Evolution as a threat to their Religion state it is wrong.

Answer 8

Are you kidding. You know that you are at this very moment made up of millions of 1 Cell organisms. So if there is no theory of evolution GOD got it right the first time!!! So he does not evolve at all; and all the suffering of the world through disease etc. is part of the master plan? Why not just go to the end of the plan and make us truely perfect and happy. Is this a game GOD is playing. is that what you mean? Are you claiming GOD is the source of this suffereing? If GOD is not and we are learning to make life better and survive longer. And he did create us from the start with a foundation and the foundation from this great gift is allowing us to grow and "evolve" and then GOD is also evolving...well I'm starting to see a big flaw in your theory there- CHAMP.

Answer 9

The earth isn't a perfect distance from the Sun. Why do you think we have polar ice caps, deserts and barren wastelands. Two thirds of it is water which is hardly an efficient use of space considering humanity is a species that lives on land. And forget about the "it's only a theory" fallacy. It's a proven fact-mechanisms are theoretical not that evolution occurs.

Answer 10

You thought wrong. A theory is a scientific way of stating things. Do you believe in the THEORY of aerodyamics or germ THEORY of disease.

Read something other than the bible If this is the best "arguement" that you guys can come up with, it's like trying to reason with a fish.

Answer 11

Uggg, not again. Someone that knows nothing about Evolution, and science. Please go learn what it actually says and then come back here and we'll chat.

Btw, theres NO law of creation. And Theory in science doesn't have the same meaning as the word theory has for regular people.

You have only showed how badly educated you are.

What is it with Christians? Do you guys skip 99% of your days in school with religious excuses?