[_ Old Earth _] Evolution 101

[Heidi]

And by the way, the first cell had to have come from some place. So where do evolutionists claim it came from? :o

 

[jwu]

No. I'm talking about the "millions" of years you say humans have been on this earth! In those millions of years, why has no human ever produced offspring with wings? You said it took millions of years for apes to turn into humans, so again, why have humans not produced offspring with wings in those millions of years?

Why should that have happened? Keep in mind that evolution doesn't proceed with a specific goal in mind. You imply that it is "desireable" for evolution to upgrade humans like that.

Sorry, but humans haven't bred offspring unidentical enough to call them a different species like the offspring of apes which are called "homo sapiens"!

So you deny that differences can accumulate? How come that speciation has been directly observed?

Once again, all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors because mating and breeding are what produce descendants, not one species simply turing into another one on its own. That only happens in sci-fi movies and books.

See above...speciation has been directly observed. All descendants are capable of breeding with their direct ancestors, but not necessarily with distant ancestors which are many generations worth of accumulated changes away.

And by the way, the first cell havd to come from some place. So where do evolutionists claim it came from?

"Evolutionists" make no statement about that at all, as that's not part of the theory of evolution. A natural origin of the first cell by way of replicating polymers->hypoercycles->protobiont->cell are what the current hypothesis of abiogenesis is about but the precise origin of the first cell is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. The evidence clearly indicates that long ago there was just single celled life, and it slowly developed into multicellular forms.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Furthermore, even with his own examples he nicely defeats his own point by coming up with a clear cut case in which even according to his own assumptions there is an increase of information due to mutation and selection. What is your take on that?

I note that you didn't address my request for your take on Spetner's

own increase of information.You shifted from information to "useful

information"

Your gonna have to elaborate jwu. I'm not following you.

I doubt Spetner was careless enough to make a statement like that. Maybe

it's a contextual issue we're having here...

Let me know.

Peace

 

[Heidi]

No. I'm talking about the "millions" of years you say humans have been on this earth! In those millions of years, why has no human ever produced offspring with wings? You said it took millions of years for apes to turn into humans, so again, why have humans not produced offspring with wings in those millions of years?

Why should that have happened? Keep in mind that evolution doesn't proceed with a specific goal in mind. You imply that it is "desireable" for evolution to upgrade humans like that.

[quote:06024]Sorry, but humans haven't bred offspring unidentical enough to call them a different species like the offspring of apes which are called "homo sapiens"!

So you deny that differences can accumulate? How come that speciation has been directly observed?

Once again, all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors because mating and breeding are what produce descendants, not one species simply turing into another one on its own. That only happens in sci-fi movies and books.

See above...speciation has been directly observed. All descendants are capable of breeding with their direct ancestors, but not necessarily with distant ancestors which are many generations worth of accumulated changes away.

And by the way, the first cell havd to come from some place. So where do evolutionists claim it came from?

"Evolutionists" make no statement about that at all, as that's not part of the theory of evolution. A natural origin of the first cell by way of replicating polymers->hypoercycles->protobiont->cell are what the current hypothesis of abiogenesis is about but the precise origin of the first cell is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. The evidence clearly indicates that long ago there was just single celled life, and it slowly developed into multicellular forms.[/quote:06024]

In other words, you're saying that the creation of man was an accident. Is that correct? If so, then why did Darwin pick the ape to have created us by accident instead of a bird? Sorry, but you contradict yourself. The very reason that Darwin picked the ape is because it is more similar to humans than other animals. So he's trying to show that it was not an accident, but a natural evolution. So which is it? An accident or a natural process? Or don't you know which? :o

The only way offspring can acquire genes is from their parents who are capable of breeding with each other, period. To claim that an animal and a human are intermingled is not only suggesting bestiality, but is impossible as well. And until you see that, then conversing with you is a waste of time.

You still have not answered my question of how evolutionists explain the existence of the first cell.

 

[jwu]

Furthermore, even with his own examples he nicely defeats his own point by coming up with a clear cut case in which even according to his own assumptions there is an increase of information due to mutation and selection. What is your take on that?

[quote:88028]I note that you didn't address my request for your take on Spetner's

own increase of information.You shifted from information to "useful

information"

Your gonna have to elaborate jwu. I'm not following you.

I doubt Spetner was careless enough to make a statement like that. Maybe

it's a contextual issue we're having here...

Let me know.

Peace[/quote:88028]I don't know much about Spetner's works, but in the part which you quoted he did come up with an information increase due to selection. If he takes it back or explains why it supposedly doesn't count, then it's up to you to provide that line of reasoning - it's not in the quoted section.

In other words, you're saying that the creation of man was an accident. Is that correct? If so, then why did Darwin pick the ape to have created us by accident instead of a bird? Sorry, but you contradict yourself. The very reason that Darwin picked the ape is because it is more similar to humans than other animals. So he's trying to show that it was not an accident, but a natural evolution.

An accident from a purely naturalistic point of view. Guided by God or with God's agreement from a theistic point of view.
Darwin picked apes because of homological similarities, yes - and meanwhile many more evidence has been found for ancestry from apes, mostly on the genetic level, while the same evidence indicates that we do not have birds in our line of ancestors.

So which is it? An accident or a natural process? Or don't you know which?

Why are these mutually exclusive? You're not making any sense. Accidents can be natural processes, can't they? In fact, as far as i know most accidents are natural processes...

The only way offspring can acquire genes is from their parents who are capable of breeding with each other, period. To claim that an animal and a human are intermingled is not only suggesting bestiality, but is impossible as well. And until you see that, then conversing with you is a waste of time.

And for the 100th time, no-one ever claimed that an animal and a human procreated with each other. Stop claiming that evolution claims that this happened! Where did i say that two parents that cannot procreate with each other had offspring with each other? Put up or retract that statement!

You still have not answered my question of how evolutionists explain the existence of the first cell.

Because that has nothing to do with evolution. If you ask me as a theist, then abiogenesis occured because God set up the universe for it to happen. Atheists will give you a different answer of course, but it is completely irrelevant for evolution how the first cell got here.

 

[Heidi]

Furthermore, even with his own examples he nicely defeats his own point by coming up with a clear cut case in which even according to his own assumptions there is an increase of information due to mutation and selection. What is your take on that?

[quote:026e2]I note that you didn't address my request for your take on Spetner's

own increase of information.You shifted from information to "useful

information"

Your gonna have to elaborate jwu. I'm not following you.

I doubt Spetner was careless enough to make a statement like that. Maybe

it's a contextual issue we're having here...

Let me know.

Peace

I don't know much about Spetner's works, but in the part which you quoted he did come up with an information increase due to selection. If he takes it back or explains why it supposedly doesn't count, then it's up to you to provide that line of reasoning - it's not in the quoted section.

In other words, you're saying that the creation of man was an accident. Is that correct? If so, then why did Darwin pick the ape to have created us by accident instead of a bird? Sorry, but you contradict yourself. The very reason that Darwin picked the ape is because it is more similar to humans than other animals. So he's trying to show that it was not an accident, but a natural evolution.

An accident from a purely naturalistic point of view. Guided by God or with God's agreement from a theistic point of view.
Darwin picked apes because of homological similarities, yes - and meanwhile many more evidence has been found for ancestry from apes, mostly on the genetic level, while the same evidence indicates that we do not have birds in our line of ancestors.

So which is it? An accident or a natural process? Or don't you know which?

Why are these mutually exclusive? You're not making any sense. Accidents can be natural processes, can't they? In fact, as far as i know most accidents are natural processes...

The only way offspring can acquire genes is from their parents who are capable of breeding with each other, period. To claim that an animal and a human are intermingled is not only suggesting bestiality, but is impossible as well. And until you see that, then conversing with you is a waste of time.

And for the 100th time, no-one ever claimed that an animal and a human procreated with each other. Stop claiming that evolution claims that this happened! Where did i say that two parents that cannot procreate with each other had offspring with each other? Put up or retract that statement!

You still have not answered my question of how evolutionists explain the existence of the first cell.

Because that has nothing to do with evolution. If you ask me as a theist, then abiogenesis occured because God set up the universe for it to happen. Atheists will give you a different answer of course, but it is completely irrelevant for evolution how the first cell got here.[/quote:026e2]

How can an accident be a natural process? :o That's like saying that design and random are the same thing. Evolutionists are simply trying to find a way to explain how an ape can turn into a human being. And since here is no natural way without apes and humans breeding with each other, they claim that it "just happened" when that contradicts the reproductive process. No animals or human has ever produced a different species as offspring without being able to breed with that species except in the minds of men. And that is reality, my friend.

Sorry but explaining the existence of the first cell has everything to do with evolution because evolutionists believe that a "human" explanation has to exist for the creation of man when no human explanation exists for the existence of the first cell. So evolutionists avoid the issue of the first cell. But if they didn't avoid the issue, then they would see that the possibility of humans appearing on earth is just as likely as the first cell appearing on the earth. Evolutionists also want to avoid anything that shows that God exists. So it is extremely relevant to the theory of evolution.

 

[jwu]

How can an accident be a natural process?

How is a person being injured by a rock that falls off a cliff due to erosion not an accident and a natural process?

And since here is no natural way without apes and humans breeding with each other, they claim that it "just happened" when that contradicts the reproductive process. No animals or human has ever produced a different species as offspring without being able to breed with that species except in the minds of men. And that is reality, my friend.

Since humans are apes, there is no problem with a human breeding with an ape, providing it is an ape of the species homo sapiens. No-one ever claimed that a human bred with a non-human ape. Once again, since you keep putting these words in our mouths i'd like you to provide an actual quote.

And once again, speciation has been directly observed.

Sorry but explaining the existence of the first cell has everything to do with evolution because evolutionists believe that a "human" explanation has to exist for the creation of man when no human explanation exists for the existence of the first cell.

What are you talking about?

So evolutionists avoid the issue of the first cell. But if they didn't avoid the issue, then they would see that the possibility of humans appearing on earth is just as likely as the first cell appearing on the earth.

I'd like to see your calculations...furthermore, you once again imply that evolution is a directed process with a goal in mind.

Evolutionists also want to avoid anything that shows that God exists.

Wrong. Evolution does not equal atheism after all. I am a Christian by the way.

 

[army_of_juan]

Evolutionists are simply trying to find a way to explain how an ape can turn into a human being.

Humans are classified as apes, this line makes no sense.

And since here is no natural way without apes and humans breeding with each other, they claim that it "just happened" when that contradicts the reproductive process. No animals or human has ever produced a different species as offspring without being able to breed with that species except in the minds of men. And that is reality, my friend.

Actually it hasn't been shown that humans can't breed with other apes though it may not be likely do the being different species.
Riddle me this: Why do humans and other apes have some of the exact same DNA scaring from ERVs but with no other animals?

Sorry but explaining the existence of the first cell has everything to do with evolution because evolutionists believe that a "human" explanation has to exist for the creation of man when no human explanation exists for the existence of the first cell. So evolutionists avoid the issue of the first cell. But if they didn't avoid the issue, then they would see that the possibility of humans appearing on earth is just as likely as the first cell appearing on the earth. Evolutionists also want to avoid anything that shows that God exists. So it is extremely relevant to the theory of evolution.

No it's not relevant. Also, there was no "first cell", it's like saying there was a first human. It's not black and white like that, it's a gradually change like black blending into grey then into white. There's no exact point where black turns into white and the same goes with life.

Evolution doesn't care how life started anyway, it only deals with the diversification of life.

Evolutionists also want to avoid anything that shows that God exists.

I like this line, this implies the evolutionist are atheist when the majority of evolutionist are actually Christian.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu wrote:


Furthermore, even with his own examples he nicely defeats his own point by coming up with a clear cut case in which even according to his own assumptions there is an increase of information due to mutation and selection. What is your take on that?



I note that you didn't address my request for your take on Spetner's

own increase of information.You shifted from information to "useful

information"

Charlie wrote:



Your gonna have to elaborate jwu. I'm not following you.

I doubt Spetner was careless enough to make a statement like that. Maybe

it's a contextual issue we're having here...

Let me know.

Peace


jwu wrote:

I don't know much about Spetner's works, but in the part which you quoted he did come up with an information increase due to selection. If he takes it back or explains why it supposedly doesn't count, then it's up to you to provide that line of reasoning - it's not in the quoted section.

To understand this properly, it’s necessary to realize enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate), and this fine-tuning is necessary for living cells to function. Mutations reduce specificity and hence would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates too. But this loss of specificity means loss of information content. Dr Spetner analyzes this with rigorous mathematics using standard definitions of information. He presents the two extremes:

1.

An enzyme has activity for only one substrate out of n possible ones and zero for the othersâ€â€here the information gain is log2n.
2.

The second is where there is no discrimination between any of the substratesâ€â€here the information gain is zero.


Real enzymes are somewhere in between, and Dr Spetner shows how to calculate their information. As explained above, living organisms require enzymes to do a specific job, so their information content is very close to the maximum in case 1. Quite close to the other extreme are ordinary acids or alkalis, which hydrolyse many compounds. These have wonderful extended-spectrum catalytic activity, but are not specific, so have low information content, so would be useless for the precise control required for biological reactions. All observed mutations reduce the specificity and trend towards the second extreme case. The trend described in the ß-Lactamases is just the same as that described in ribitol dehydrogenase, the enzyme some bacteria use to metabolize ribitol, a derivative of a type of sugar (right). That is, the mutant acquired the new ability to metabolize xylitol, so it was thought to be an example of new information arising, and that it could trend towards a highly specific xylitol dehydrogenase. But on further inspection, it turned out not only to reduce its ability to perform its original specific function of metabolizing ribitol, but also to increase the ability to synthesize lots of other things, including arabitol. The trend is towards loss of specificity and producing an ordinary broad-spectrum catalyst, i.e. from case 1 to case 2......

Jonathan Sarfati
Phd, Chemistry

Hopefully this will help jwu. It's an analysis of Specter's work.

Peace

 

[jwu]

I don't see how this makes the equation that came up with a hard number of an increase of information go away.

That is, the mutant acquired the new ability to metabolize xylitol, so it was thought to be an example of new information arising, and that it could trend towards a highly specific xylitol dehydrogenase. But on further inspection, it turned out not only to reduce its ability to perform its original specific function of metabolizing ribitol, but also to increase the ability to synthesize lots of other things, including arabitol. The trend is towards loss of specificity and producing an ordinary broad-spectrum catalyst, i.e.

So if these additional capabilities had not occured it would have been a higher increase of information than with them? If that makes it disqualify as an increase of information, then i dare to say that no increase of information is required to get from amoeba to men in first instance.

Or how about a gene doubling? One gene gets doubled, the original still fulfills its original function, and the copy gets mutated in a way so that it enables metabolizing another chemical just like it happened in that example. Now that organism has the ability to metabolize its original source of nutrients still with the original performance, but also others. If that is not an increase of genetic information, then the concept of information at hand is as irrelevant to biology as Shannon's, as it makes no statement on the actual quality of the mutations in regards to the organism's reproductive success.


As a seperate line of reasoning...what happens to the information content of a string of DNA if a base pair is deleted and whatever was coded in it doesn't fulfil a purpose anymore? Does the information content decrease because of that, or can this not be determined based on the effect of the codex enzyme or protein on the organism?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

So if these additional capabilities had not occured it would have been a higher increase of information than with them?

Correct....and confusing, I know.

Here's a graph that might help conceptualize the net loss in info.

Sorry I'm a little slow answering...been a little crazy at work.

I'll respond to your other points when I get things back in order...not

complexity...lol!!

Peace my man

 

[jwu]

Correct....and confusing, I know.

Then that definition of information has no relevant bearing on biology, as it makes no sense. It's purely a definitions game in an attempt to come up with a definition according to which information cannot increase. Just take Shannon's and you have one. If it's meaningful to biology is an entirely different question though.

But even according to it a gene doubling with subsequent mutation would result in a net increase, as the activity on Ribitol remains the same due to the one unchanged copy of the gene, and the Larabitol and Xylitol activity increases due to the mutated one.

There is an entirely different point of view as well: Many mutations confer resistance to antibiotics or toxins by reducing activity with these, which is the precise opposite of what Spetner considers an increase of information. So according to his definitions a mutation whose sole effect is resistance to toxins - quite a nice trait to have - is a loss of genetic information. How does that make sense?

 

[UKholylady]

hate to ruin everybody's party, but the textbook biological definition of evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population", this was an excepted A2 (british examination level) answer.

For example: (from a biology revision guide)

One in 40000 people are albino, which is caused by an individual inheriting a recessive allele (a gene of a specific variant) for the pigment melanin which determines one's skin colour by varying in concentration within the skin tissue (ie. low concentration in lighter skin, higher concentrations in darker skin types). The dominant allele can be thought of as the "working" gene for melanin and when present (if needs be in a heterozygous individual, where even if one consists of a working dominant allele and recessive "faulty" allele, the dominant allele is able to cover for the recessive allele and produce regular melanin levels) and when an individual inherits a recessive allele (ie. not working) from both parents, the genes that code for melanin in that individual's body (a gene codes for one specific protein) do not produce melanin and lead to an albino child.

The knowledge of genes coding how our body (or any living organism) works has been through a very long process of observation. Genetic tests exist where it can be tested whether one has an allele for specific disorder and it is hard to believe how it can thought of as not being believed as true when the test is built on biochemical knowledge.... the individual being tested has the dual recessive alleles in their genotype (embodied by their chormosomes...physical molecules) in the gene locus for making melanin, and very evident to any one with eyes...has the phenotype of being albino. Likewise...testing anyone who is not albino...they happen to not have the dual recessive genes and posess at least one dominant allele for melanin production, so melanin production is normal. This proves how genes play a very large important and PROVEN role in our lives...even though there is no proof (yet) that genes control the free will of our minds to any extent they unavoidably control our bodie's function beyond our control...control which is set at conception in the random fusion of gametes. Denying this is true is like seeing a man walk across a road...but this book says that the man didnt really cross the road, yet your eyes can quite easily see the man crossing the road with our own senses...what is more reliable as a source, a book of unknown origin, or what our eyes blantantly telling us.

Now with the proven role of alleles and genes defined....the textbook definition of evolution "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population" can be tackled. New species are created through the process of speciation. It has been proven through fossil records and it is thought that when a animal is gestating before "birth" it mimics various forms of its evolutionary ancestors on its route to being a developed infant animal. This has been proven through (moral questions of the practice aside) the study of rejected and dead animal fetuses through different stages of development, with phisiological similarities apparent, as well as the alarming fact that we share 95% of our genome (a proven molecule which is proven through decades of study to be the carrier of genetic information) with a chimp, and around 50% with an oak tree (why does it seem silly that we share 50% of our genome with a tree? Trees perform many of the same basic level functions as a human being...they respire and a difference such as the formation of bark could be accounted for in a minute deviation in genetic code...bark is made from cellulose which is also produced in the human body, and it only takes one enzyme to be one amino acid in difference -1 amino acid being coded for by 3 basepairs in the genome out of the countless millions- to be a different shape and bond differently with a cellulose molecule and make tightly strung lengths of bark and not the nets of cellulose in the human body). One species is proven through much evidence to arise from another...such as man from apes. Evolution is the process of the frequency of alleles in a population changing (eg. with 70% of a population of cats posessing the allele for ginger fur and 30% with the allele for black fur), and only very rarely occurs in a new species being "evolved"- a new species is only created as some members adapt through random mutation (through a process of a base pair being deleted, subsituted or added- affecting the make up of the protein coded for by that gene) Certain random mutations are advantagious and these advantaged creatures are therefore more likely to survive and therefore more likely to reproduce, therefore passing on their newly mutated and advantageous allele on more efficiently than the regular members of the speices...and so the ratio of alleles in a population changes....EVOLUTION.

Evolution produces a new species when through this process of random mutation a member of a population is able to exploit a new "niche" (role in a community). Further mutations to the countless generations following the "pioneer" individual make those members of the species population so different that they are now profoundly different to their original species kin. A species is defined as two or more organism that are phisiologically similar and can mate to produce fertile offspring. When the breakaway members of a population "evolve" through change to suit their new natural surroundings (a very long and chance process through random mutation...a hit and miss effort) they can be so different that the later generations of the breakaway sect are so different that they if now reintroduced to the original population, cannot reproduce to create fertile offsping either being phisolgically now incompatible (coitus cannot occur as basically - things wont fit), behaviourly (different oestrus cycles arising between the 2 population factions...they are not on heat at the same time of the year and therefore cannot mate) and genetically (this is a much more progressed version of speciation where through random advantagious mutation by chance, the chromosome pairs of the two population factions are so different they cannot combine to produce a diploid (- more basically...even) number of chromosome pairs in the offspring..making it infertile (an example of this is the mule).

There is proof for all of this, some of it is blantantly obvious happening infront of our eyes (like some of the gene processes) and some of the evolutionary processes occur within our lifetimes (antibiotic resistant bacteria can by chance be created with a random mutation which stops antibiotic molecules interacting with it...therefore individuals with this mutation are at a massive advantage in the fact they dont die...and take over the whole of that bacterial population. Drosiphilla- fruitflies, also have such short life and reproductive cycles that man induced pressures on mating and mutations (however none so far advantageous) can be observed echoing down the generations within a month). This post has been more than half of a AQA biology A unit 5 syllabus explained, and would not be the model accepted by the educational authorities if it had no element of feasibillity, which is blantant with the evidence in front of us.

 

[Heidi]

You guys are so lost. But if you want to indulge in the fantasy that humans came from wild beasts, then indulge away. But you have a long way to fall when you find out what the truth is. In the meantime, it makes for great science fiction. ;-)

 

[army_of_juan]

You guys are so lost. But if you want to indulge in the fantasy that humans came from wild beasts, then indulge away. But you have a long way to fall when you find out what the truth is. In the meantime, it makes for great science fiction. ;-)

And where did humans come from? Dirt? If that's not a fantasy I don't know what is.

You have no interest in learning, do you? What a shame that you let your ego and religious bias prevent you from seeing the world as it really is.

In the meantime, it makes for great science. ;-)

Fixed this line for you.

 

[Grengor]

What, an aggressive fundalmentalist utilizing what equates to years worth of rhetoric under his/her belt not wanting to actually learn and discuss but scoff and mock things far beyond his/her willing comprehension (apparently) in an attempt to preserve a disingenuous worldview? Nah, never.

But hey, there's always the people that actually do want to learn, they're the people that make this debate worthwhile. You can just ignore the rhetoric from the hecklers most of the time. MOST.

 

[Khristeeanos]

And where did humans come from? Dirt? If that's not a fantasy I don't know what is.

That is what God says, so yes. That is what happened.

The Bible is life.

The Bible is the Word of God.

 

[Heidi]

You guys are so lost. But if you want to indulge in the fantasy that humans came from wild beasts, then indulge away. But you have a long way to fall when you find out what the truth is. In the meantime, it makes for great science fiction. ;-)

And where did humans come from? Dirt? If that's not a fantasy I don't know what is.

You have no interest in learning, do you? What a shame that you let your ego and religious bias prevent you from seeing the world as it really is.

In the meantime, it makes for great science. ;-)

Fixed this line for you.

And where did the sun, moon, stars, earth, and all living things come from? :o Evolutionists avoid this issue altogether because it canno be understood by the human mind. Only things like humans coming from the wombs of wild beasts can be understood by the human mind. And that is why the creation of most of the universe is left unanswered by evolutionists. Since God created the universe, then forming man out of the dust is mere child's play for him. :D

Sorry but I was an unbeliever and an evolutionist for 38 years I'm ashamed to say. So I have learned something new. I have therefore been on both sides of the issue. But you however, are still in the same place you were when you were born; with no knowledge of God. Therefore, it is you who needs to learn something new. ;-)

 

[protos]

What, an aggressive fundalmentalist utilizing what equates to years worth of rhetoric under his/her belt not wanting to actually learn and discuss but scoff and mock things far beyond his/her willing comprehension (apparently) in an attempt to preserve a disingenuous worldview? Nah, never.

But hey, there's always the people that actually do want to learn, they're the people that make this debate worthwhile. You can just ignore the rhetoric from the hecklers most of the time. MOST.

And the evolutionist, indoctrinated with lies and ancient greek myths, ready to dispell everything in order for his illusions and delusions to seem compatible with science. Truly the 8th wonder of the world (aside from the Panama Canal).

But it's the believers of Christ that keep him from getting flamed and embarassed in the most derogatory fashion.

 

[armed2010]

You guys are so lost. But if you want to indulge in the fantasy that humans came from wild beasts, then indulge away. But you have a long way to fall when you find out what the truth is. In the meantime, it makes for great science fiction. ;-)

And where did humans come from? Dirt? If that's not a fantasy I don't know what is.

You have no interest in learning, do you? What a shame that you let your ego and religious bias prevent you from seeing the world as it really is.

In the meantime, it makes for great science. ;-)

Fixed this line for you.

And where did the sun, moon, stars, earth, and all living things come from? :o Evolutionists avoid this issue altogether because it canno be understood by the human mind. Only things like humans coming from the wombs of wild beasts can be understood by the human mind. And that is why the creation of most of the universe is left unanswered by evolutionists. Since God created the universe, then forming man out of the dust is mere child's play for him. :D

Sorry but I was an unbeliever and an evolutionist for 38 years I'm ashamed to say. So I have learned something new. I have therefore been on both sides of the issue. But you however, are still in the same place you were when you were born; with no knowledge of God. Therefore, it is you who needs to learn something new. ;-)

Carico, you have been told thousands of times that one species does not simply pop out an entirely different species from the womb. Please stop spouting this strawman. You believed in evolution for 38 years yet you never knew what you believed in apparantly.