[_ Old Earth _] Scientists find missing evolutionary link

[Dunzo]

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080102GoldenEnzyme.html

The crystal structure of a molecule from a primitive fungus has served as a time machine to show researchers more about the evolution of life from the simple to the complex.

By studying the three-dimensional version of the fungus protein bound to an RNA molecule, scientists from Purdue University and the University of Texas at Austin have been able to visualize how life progressed from an early self-replicating molecule that also performed chemical reactions to one in which proteins assumed some of the work.

"Now we can see how RNA progressed to share functions with proteins," said Alan Lambowitz, director of the University of Texas Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology. "This was a critical missing step."

Results of the study were published in Thursday's (Jan. 3) issue of the journal Nature.

Bahaha.
Any arguments? :D

 

[dad]

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080102GoldenEnzyme.html

The crystal structure of a molecule from a primitive fungus has served as a time machine to show researchers more about the evolution of life from the simple to the complex.

By studying the three-dimensional version of the fungus protein bound to an RNA molecule, scientists from Purdue University and the University of Texas at Austin have been able to visualize how life progressed from an early self-replicating molecule that also performed chemical reactions to one in which proteins assumed some of the work.

"Now we can see how RNA progressed to share functions with proteins," said Alan Lambowitz, director of the University of Texas Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology. "This was a critical missing step."

Results of the study were published in Thursday's (Jan. 3) issue of the journal Nature.

Bahaha.
Any arguments? :D

From your link,
"Obviously, we can't see the process of moving from RNA to RNA and proteins and then to DNA, without a time machine," Golden said."

In other words all they do is speculate on how things now work. Nothing at all to do with the past, or creation.

 

[Guest]

From your link,
"Obviously, we can't see the process of moving from RNA to RNA and proteins and then to DNA, without a time machine," Golden said."

In other words all they do is speculate on how things now work. Nothing at all to do with the past, or creation.

Again, when science admits to certain lack of evidence, Dad tries to insert miracles . Unfortunately your miracles include such things as "magical light" which existed before 4400 years, then it was replaced by the "current light". Of course it's even more magical how we can see the stars beyond 4400 light years away when the "current light" hasn't got here yet because it's too slow . Just give it up dad, your logic and theories are JOKES!

 

[John]

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[freeway]

Don’t put to much “faith†in this theory because in a year or so the think tank of scientist will come up with a new theory. They seem to do this every so often. Lets look at just a few. There was Lucy, then the Nebraska man, and if that does fit your style, then how about spacemen from planet xys seeded us. The list could go on and on :crazyeyes: . Seems to me they seem to be overlooking the obvious. “God†maybe he’s a little bit smarter than us, just a little. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

Don’t put to much “faith†in this theory because in a year or so the think tank of scientist will come up with a new theory. They seem to do this every so often. Lets look at just a few. There was Lucy, then the Nebraska man, and if that does fit your style, then how about spacemen from planet xys seeded us. The list could go on and on :crazyeyes: . Seems to me they seem to be overlooking the obvious. “God†maybe he’s a little bit smarter than us, just a little. ;-)

When I frequent this forum, I often have to ask myself if the people are serious. This is one of those occasions.

The "controversy" behind Lucy wasn't even made by claims of any scientist. National Geographic incorrectly called something found far away from it "lucy's knee." The actual scientist that found it acknowledged that they were entirely separate.

A detailed synopsis of how creationists have been exploiting a confusion on this matter has been made here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

Seriously though, the criticism generated on this forum is so obviously religiously motivated it's hilarious. So many of you guys don't have a real interest in finding the truth. You have an aversion to any theory that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, and you fight it for that reason alone. This is not science. You already have a conclusion, and you want the evidence to fit it. When evidence doesn't, you reference erroneous or irrelevant things such as the ones above. This is why the scientific community gets angry at religious people. I can't say I blame them sometimes. Richard Dawkins' patience died off a long time ago after endlessly refuting made up claims by creationists to counter evolution. Religiously motivated criticism INHIBITS scientific progress. It wastes the time of scientists in countless instances. Worst of all, as shown in the link above, a minor confusion gets blown way out of proportion by the religious critics. It further spreads the already existent unwarranted suspicion of evolutionary scientists, and it really just becomes an annoyance to those who care about scientific progress.

Just STOP. You don't have a scientific reason to criticize the people in this thread. They found a possible explanation for how life became more complex and nothing more. They have clearly stated that.

Your post can be simplified into the following:

"Oh, well science has been wrong before. Why should it be right this time? Here are some bogus references to things exploited by the creationists in order to further my erroneous point. Believe in God, he's smarter than us."

 

[John]

You already have a conclusion, and you want the evidence to fit it

...... : it works both way buddy.

 

[Dunzo]

You already have a conclusion, and you want the evidence to fit it

...... : it works both way buddy.

Yeah, haven't heard that one before. I couldn't agree more with Jay - he said what I've been struggling to say for so long.
You, on the other hand, couldn't be more wrong. If you could give me a single example of this scientific corruption not propagated by Kent Hovind, I'd be one very surprised individual. What you claim is the very opposite of science. We wouldn't be where we are right now if it weren't for the scientific method, almost perfectly geared towards discovering the truth as best as possible. Speaking of which, what could scientists possibly gain from convincing the world that the universe is billions of years old and that life evolves?

 

[Jayls5]

You already have a conclusion, and you want the evidence to fit it

...... : it works both way buddy.

Believing in a scientific theory is not synonymous with blind opposition to a well supported scientific theory. A scientific belief is contingent on the evidence that supports it, and that belief can be altered or changed in light of new evidence. On the other hand, the religious opposition to evolution is fairly arbitrary. The two are entirely different.

 

[freeway]

When I frequent this forum, I often have to ask myself if the people are serious. This is one of those occasions.

well the last time I looked this was christian web site.

A detailed synopsis of how creationists have been exploiting a confusion on this matter has been made here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

please,

Seriously though, the criticism generated on this forum is so obviously religiously motivated it's hilarious.

again " Christian site"
So many of you guys don't have a real interest in finding the truth.[/quote]
I have found the truth, Jesus, and the Bible...

You have an aversion to any theory that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, and you fight it for that reason alone.

yes of course we do, as you said, evolution is only a theory, per your faith

Just STOP. You don't have a scientific reason to criticize the people in this thread. They found a possible explanation for how life became more complex and nothing more. They have clearly stated that.

funny if Christians talk about creation and how we see the evidence, somehow we are the uninformed ones,, double standard here.

Your post can be simplified into the following:

"Oh, well science has been wrong before. Why should it be right this time? Here are some bogus references to things exploited by the creationists in order to further my erroneous point. Believe in God, he's smarter than us."

except for the words " bogus, exploited and erroneous' you hit it right on the head.. Again as a Christian, I believe evolution is nothing more than a "theory" givin to the world by satan.. so sad

 

[Jayls5]

well the last time I looked this was christian web site.

Nobody is denying that.

A detailed synopsis of how creationists have been exploiting a confusion on this matter has been made here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

please,

That is a response?

Seriously though, the criticism generated on this forum is so obviously religiously motivated it's hilarious.

again " Christian site"

What does this have to do with unwarranted criticism? You want to play the game of science, but then you retreat to your religion when people start to analyze what you're saying. I can't just say, "Galilean moon theory " is wrong because science has been wrong before" then say, "Well that's just my opinion" when people disagree with me.

That doesn't fly, and neither should religious faith. You can have faith that Copernicus is wrong that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but at the end of the day, your faith would be objectively wrong. Your claim above is completely void of substance. I have essentially asked why you believe a certain way, and you have responded with, "I have no empirical evidence, just an opinion." Only, you call that opinion "faith." Faith is essentially an unwavering, dare I say, stubborn opinion. I'm sorry, but faith's role in scientific affairs have been marginalized, and for good reason. "Because God says so" deserves every bit of scorn that it should have since the days when the church claimed we were the center of the universe despite stronger evidence to the contrary.

So many of you guys don't have a real interest in finding the truth.

I have found the truth, Jesus, and the Bible...

Infallible theology has historically been proven to be foolish, especially when the evidence is already against you.

You have an aversion to any theory that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, and you fight it for that reason alone.

yes of course we do, as you said, evolution is only a theory, per your faith

Why do so many Christians repeat the mantra of "it's only a theory." Do they not understand what a theory entails? They seem to be implying that it's synonymous with an arbitrary hypothesis. In reality, it is a highly supported hypothesis backed by mounds of evidence from multiple branches of scientific study. All signs point to evolution from many branches. So yes, it's ONLY a highly supported hypothesis supported by mounds of evidence from multiple branches of science. Only that...

It goes like this.

Law > Theory > Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an unsubstantiated but educated guess.
A theory is an empirically supported hypothesis.
A law is a theory that has been deemed irrefutable.

We, as scientists, have not deemed evolution to be irrefutable. This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that there is reason NOT to believe it based on the fact it's a theory alone.

In fact, saying it's "only a theory" is essentially a meaningless phrase without significant evidence to the contrary of evolution. Unfortunately, you're working against a TON of empirical evidence. Given the wide range of data supporting evolution, creationists frequently utilize the "God of the gaps argument" - where they try to find things not yet well explained. In this very thread, when one of these gaps have a potential explanation, you shoot it down without reason. Creationists then completely ignore the fact that their own "theory" is not scientific, nor is it as well supported as evolution. Evolution may only be a "theory," but it's a lot better than a less supported religious belief. There is no getting around that.

Just STOP. You don't have a scientific reason to criticize the people in this thread. They found a possible explanation for how life became more complex and nothing more. They have clearly stated that.

funny if Christians talk about creation and how we see the evidence, somehow we are the uninformed ones,, double standard here.

That is because creationism is a joke in the scientific community. All of the theists claim to see "intelligent design" in everything. There are so many problems with this purported theory that I almost don't know where to begin.

First of all, the intelligent design argument is self defeating. A scientist asks, "Why must a creature have been designed by an intelligent source" to which the creationist traditionally responds, "because this creature is too complex to have been brought about by random chance." Let's disregard the inadequacy of the phrase "random chance" and get to the meat of this claim. Assuming something is too complex to have been formed without an intelligent source, that same line of reasoning is applied to the intelligent source that created the creature. It happens in infinite regress. No creationist can say that "God doesn't need a more intelligent designer" without refuting or completely altering his premises. The premise then changes to, "Complex things needs an intelligent designer, and the intelligent designer doesn't need an intelligent designer himself." A philosopher would immediately notice that they are granting a pass to God ( which has no intelligent source), while they do not for any other complex intelligent thing. In the interest of keeping an eternal (or self creating) God, creationists defeat their own argument. If God doesn't need an intelligent designer, then why does complex life? Your answer to this question will unavoidably be some a priori claim, and this is NOT scientific.

Let us also disregard the fact that tons of creatures on this earth were "intelligently designed" to have absolutely useless and sometimes counterproductive parts. In fact, tons of creatures on this earth were intelligently designed to be genetically diseased. Children die of countless genetic disorders that were supposedly "intelligently designed." Others become so disabled that they regress into needing feeding tubes and can't even move. This intelligent designer intelligently designed a bunch of things that make life unbearable for both humans and animals.

Your post can be simplified into the following:

"Oh, well science has been wrong before. Why should it be right this time? Here are some bogus references to things exploited by the creationists in order to further my erroneous point. Believe in God, he's smarter than us."

except for the words " bogus, exploited and erroneous' you hit it right on the head.. Again as a Christian, I believe evolution is nothing more than a "theory" givin to the world by satan.. so sad

What's sad is people who have lost their ability to reason critically, and they value this loss of reason under the guise of Christian "faith."

And you did exploit a falsehood to further your erroneous claim that because science changes, a theory shouldn't be supported.


(edit: typo)

 

[John]

Why do so many Christians repeat the mantra of "it's only a theory." Do they not understand what a theory entails?

Both sides should read this. http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Evolu ... y_a_theory

We, as scientists, have not deemed evolution to be irrefutable. This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that there is reason NOT to believe it based on the fact it's a theory alone.

Your a scientist ? wow.

Read http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Teach_the_controversy

What's sad is people who have lost their ability to reason critically, and they value this loss of reason under the guise of Christian "faith."

"lost their ability to reason critically" that statment is so ignorant it is sickening.

 

[Jayls5]

Why do so many Christians repeat the mantra of "it's only a theory." Do they not understand what a theory entails?

Both sides should read this. http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Evolu ... y_a_theory

That link is a joke.

"That life appeared on earth two billion years ago is not a truly scientific statement. It was never directly observed to have happened by anyone or anything that can leave a conclusive historical record. It cannot be directly tested because it is in the past, beyond human experience. The date would also have to be questioned and the process by which life "appeared" is still unknown; there are only hypotheses that at best can say how life could have arisen, not how life actually did arise, and the possibility that it could appear without intelligence is still only a belief, not a fact."

If you read that portion and didn't pick up on the absurdity of it, then you really have no business posting links to educate people.

By that logic, we cannot adequately date ANYTHING from prehistory with radiometric dating. Yet, radiometric dating has been accurate for everything within history. Somehow, this link magically assumes that radiometric dating suddenly stops working when applied to prehistory. There is an undertone that seems to imply that we cannot extrapolate an explanation from data. By analogy, lets say there's a murder. A man's blood, fingerprints, and semen are found at the crime scene. Investigators don't just throw their hats up in the air and say, "OH WELL! IT'S IN THE PAST! THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING FOR SURE WHO DID IT SINCE WE WEREN'T THERE!" Sorry, but we have a proven method of accurately finding dates - whether or not we were there to directly observe it. Your not link is simply not credible.

We, as scientists, have not deemed evolution to be irrefutable. This does not in any way, shape, or form mean that there is reason NOT to believe it based on the fact it's a theory alone.

Your a scientist ? wow.

Read http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Teach_the_controversy

I was speaking in general terms. I'm an advocate and follower of the scientific method. I've done scientific work before with my friend for a science fair, like a telescopic confirmation of Kepler's universal law of gravitation. I also build DPSS lasers, and testing one variable at a time is paramount when a diode's current tolerance has a narrow operating range. I've built a capacitor car as proof of concept many years ago, and I was able to extrapolate possible applications for the car industry - which companies like Honda are only just beginning to realize now that ultracapacitors are being produced. I didn't mean to imply that I was a scientist that had tested hypotheses about evolution, but I think it's fair to say that I am scientifically inclined. In my opinion, no true scientist will ever admit that evolution is an indisputable fact, and that's all I meant by the claim above.

What's sad is people who have lost their ability to reason critically, and they value this loss of reason under the guise of Christian "faith."

"lost their ability to reason critically" that statment is so ignorant it is sickening.

It would only be ignorant if I thought that all people lost their critical reasoning skills by being Christian. That is most certainly not the case.

When the church told Galileo that his telescope was a work of the devil, I'd say that's a prime example of faith inhibiting critical reasoning.

By the way, nice job ignoring my explanation why creationism is inferior and doesn't qualify as science.

 

[John]

That link is a joke.


If you read that portion and didn't pick up on the absurdity of it, then you really have no business posting links to educate people.

By that logic, we cannot adequately date ANYTHING from prehistory with radiometric dating. Yet, radiometric dating has been accurate for everything within history. Somehow, this link magically assumes that radiometric dating suddenly stops working when applied to prehistory. There is an undertone that seems to imply that we cannot extrapolate an explanation from data. By analogy, lets say there's a murder. A man's blood, fingerprints, and semen are found at the crime scene. Investigators don't just throw their hats up in the air and say, "OH WELL! IT'S IN THE PAST! THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING FOR SURE WHO DID IT SINCE WE WEREN'T THERE!" Sorry, but we have a proven method of accurately finding dates - whether or not we were there to directly observe it. Your not link is simply not credible.

radiometric dating is pure BS and very fallible

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radio ... ed_systems
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radio ... _are_known
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radio ... le_results

Read a little man.

I was speaking in general terms. I'm an advocate and follower of the scientific method. I've done scientific work before with my friend for a science fair, like a telescopic confirmation of Kepler's universal law of gravitation. I also build DPSS lasers, and testing one variable at a time is paramount when a diode's current tolerance has a narrow operating range. I've built a capacitor car as proof of concept many years ago, and I was able to extrapolate possible applications for the car industry - which companies like Honda are only just beginning to realize now that ultracapacitors are being produced. I didn't mean to imply that I was a scientist that had tested hypotheses about evolution, but I think it's fair to say that I am scientifically inclined. In my opinion, no true scientist will ever admit that evolution is an indisputable fact, and that's all I meant by the claim above.

no true scientist will ever admit that evolution is an indisputable fact

But if the controversy is not taught (and not in ridicule) then they are trying to pass evolution off as fact indirectly.

It would only be ignorant if I thought that all people lost their critical reasoning skills by being Christian. That is most certainly not the case.

When the church told Galileo that his telescope was a work of the devil, I'd say that's a prime example of faith inhibiting critical reasoning.

no true Christian will deny what God said, in so doing he.she is a heretic in my mind. Christians loose there critical thinking skills by being taken in by humanism claims.

and yes even Christians are human believe it or not, we all do wrong, the difference is that Christians have a way out.

By the way, nice job ignoring my explanation why creationism is inferior and doesn't qualify as science.

creationism is not inferior to evolution, many highly taught and respected scientists are creationists, simply claiming that something is inferior does not make it so, thats just your opinion.

my opinion is that the ToE is the biggest hoax ever.

 

[Jayls5]

That link is a joke.


If you read that portion and didn't pick up on the absurdity of it, then you really have no business posting links to educate people.

By that logic, we cannot adequately date ANYTHING from prehistory with radiometric dating. Yet, radiometric dating has been accurate for everything within history. Somehow, this link magically assumes that radiometric dating suddenly stops working when applied to prehistory. There is an undertone that seems to imply that we cannot extrapolate an explanation from data. By analogy, lets say there's a murder. A man's blood, fingerprints, and semen are found at the crime scene. Investigators don't just throw their hats up in the air and say, "OH WELL! IT'S IN THE PAST! THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING FOR SURE WHO DID IT SINCE WE WEREN'T THERE!" Sorry, but we have a proven method of accurately finding dates - whether or not we were there to directly observe it. Your not link is simply not credible.

radiometric dating is pure oopsie and very fallible

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radio ... ed_systems
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radio ... _are_known
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radio ... le_results

Read a little man.

Nice job using the exact same 'creation' wiki site that I already showed to be bogus with a brief analysis.

I urge you to "read a little" as well and find out how unreliable the sources of your links are. One of the guys in your links is a hardcore creationist who thinks that the craters on the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between Satan and the archangel Michael. Sounds scientific to me!

These people have a history of cherry picking evidence from real scientists who care about improving the accuracy of our dating systems. They also conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary of their biblical world view, and they have been criticized by the scientific community for these things. The same guy (Morris) I mentioned earlier has no background in geology. The scientific community has labeled him as dead wrong on his explanation of how relative dating works. Your sources are simply not credible, once again.

George Bush cherry picked old evidence for WMD's, and he made a fairly convincing case. The only problem was, he ignored all evidence that didn't support his cause. He turned out wrong. I'm sorry, but I am immediately inclined to ignore creationists just as they ignore the data that contradicts their views. It's only fair.

Perhaps you would like to site some scholarly journals instead.

I was speaking in general terms. I'm an advocate and follower of the scientific method. I've done scientific work before with my friend for a science fair, like a telescopic confirmation of Kepler's universal law of gravitation. I also build DPSS lasers, and testing one variable at a time is paramount when a diode's current tolerance has a narrow operating range. I've built a capacitor car as proof of concept many years ago, and I was able to extrapolate possible applications for the car industry - which companies like Honda are only just beginning to realize now that ultracapacitors are being produced. I didn't mean to imply that I was a scientist that had tested hypotheses about evolution, but I think it's fair to say that I am scientifically inclined. In my opinion, no true scientist will ever admit that evolution is an indisputable fact, and that's all I meant by the claim above.

no true scientist will ever admit that evolution is an indisputable fact

But if the controversy is not taught (and not in ridicule) then they are trying to pass evolution off as fact indirectly.

No. It says in plain words that it is a theory. This just isn't enough for some people (Christians) though.

It would only be ignorant if I thought that all people lost their critical reasoning skills by being Christian. That is most certainly not the case.

When the church told Galileo that his telescope was a work of the devil, I'd say that's a prime example of faith inhibiting critical reasoning.

no true Christian will deny what God said, in so doing he.she is a heretic in my mind. Christians loose there critical thinking skills by being taken in by humanism claims.

and yes even Christians are human believe it or not, we all do wrong, the difference is that Christians have a way out.

What you meant here is that no true Christian will deny your interpretation of what God said. Ok. So basically, you're categorizing Christians who believe as you do into your section. Then, you're telling Christians who interpret the bible differently that they aren't Christians.

By the way, nice job ignoring my explanation why creationism is inferior and doesn't qualify as science.

creationism is not inferior to evolution, many highly taught and respected scientists are creationists, simply claiming that something is inferior does not make it so, thats just your opinion.

I can also have an opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. It would "just be my opinion," but it would also be correct.

Your implicitly trying to make this issue a 50/50 likelihood, as though one opinion isn't more likely to be correct than the other. Creationism is pseudoscience, so unless these scientists keep their religion and their science completely separate, I don't see how they would be "well respected."

my opinion is that the ToE is the biggest hoax ever.

Telescopes are the devil. Moons around Jupiter are a hoax. Earth going around the sun is a hoax! People who don't analyze the past are doomed to repeat it, and it appears you're on the right track!

 

[John]

I urge you to "read a little" as well and find out how unreliable the sources of your links are. One of the guys in your links is a hardcore creationist who thinks that the craters on the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between Satan and the archangel Michael. Sounds scientific to me!

you gotta chew the meat and spit out the bones.

These people have a history of cherry picking evidence from real scientists who care about improving the accuracy of our dating systems. They also conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary of their biblical world view, and they have been criticized by the scientific community for these things. The same guy (Morris) I mentioned earlier has no background in geology. The scientific community has labeled him as dead wrong on his explanation of how relative dating works. Your sources are simply not credible, once again

that site just chaps your hide, im done there is never gonna be a change of mind with any of you, your too close minded.

No. It says in plain words that it is a theory. This just isn't enough for some people (Christians) though.

then teach the dang controversy and let the people choose for them selves, if they are taught only one side then they will be more inclined to choose that side, present both.

If 2 people were running for president and one of them was never seen then of course the other guy would win.

What you meant here is that no true Christian will deny your interpretation of what God said. Ok. So basically, you're categorizing Christians who believe as you do into your section. Then, you're telling Christians who interpret the bible differently that they aren't Christians.

My interpretation is the NKJV the "Christians" that believe in evolution a very little and very confused.

I can also have an opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. It would "just be my opinion," but it would also be correct.

that you for adding another useless comment.

Your implicitly trying to make this issue a 50/50 likelihood, as though one opinion isn't more likely to be correct than the other. Creationism is pseudoscience, so unless these scientists keep their religion and their science completely separate, I don't see how they would be "well respected."

its not "pseudo" science just because people don't like/respect them , the Creation Theory cover many different areas just as the ToE, the only problem is that is classified as "religion" and therefore unscientific is a strawman, if it was as dumb and useless as you claim then why would people with many years of study and such devote there life to it ? its because there is factual content within the creation theory .

Telescopes are the devil. Moons around Jupiter are a hoax. Earth going around the sun is a hoax! People who don't analyze the past are doomed to repeat it, and it appears you're on the right track!

We all came from a rock 2BYA, man evolved form apes, there is no God, Humans are all mighty, Hitler rules, there is no problem with any action, etc etc

people thought that "telescopes were the devil" because it was new and weird concept to them all before the information age. and anything that was weird like that was considered un godly and therefore "the devil" we now know better than that.

 

[freeway]

I went back and re-read the article again, and again it looks like, no it just a huge leap of faith, as seen in this small section


"Obviously, we can't see the process of moving from RNA to RNA and proteins and then to DNA, without a time machine," Golden said. "But by using this fungus protein, we can see this process occurring in modern life."


first here they are saying that there is really no way of knowing if this really was the way it "evolved" or not..then they go on to say the way we see it now this must have been the way it was then, means this is 100% the way it way before?, sounds like "faith".Believe me I know what faith is all about. I am the first to admit that I am no scientist. But its really about the "theory of evolution" and a very big yes its just a theory.The way its supposed to happen "life form nothing" to me, that is more faith based than just to say "God did it"
Also you guys try to say that creation is a joke, take a good look at evolution the jokes on you! in the end..

 

[John]

Yes evolution is the biggest Hoax ever in the history of earth.

the followers are "willingly ignorant" wow my heavenly father was right again. although i am not surprised 8-)

Don't stray from the true path my friends

"But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

"Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him" (James 1:12).

 

[jwu]

the followers are "willingly ignorant" wow my heavenly father was right again. although i am not surprised 8-)

No, we just require evidence for assertions which actually stands up to a bit of scrutiny.