evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Calvary Or Cavalry?

Originally posted by melatonin
I see the cavalry has arrived.

Yes, we're here -- though I should point out that junglejake is contributing as a member, not a moderator (we're allowed to do that). In light of that, he's agreed not to take any action as a moderator in this thread.

I've volunteered to do that, and want to amplify my earlier comments.

First off, I realize that this is a long thread and that there has been no shortage of personal commentary in it. It seems to go with the territory, and as staff members, we try not to overreact, but try instead to steer things back on track.

Despite the history of the thread, we do have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm asking that we focus on the topic and the merits of the arguments, rather than on each other.

Doing The Wave

When I call "hand-waving", it's because I'm seeing arguments based on logical fallacies, such as ad hominem (i.e., "people who disagree with me are idiots"), appeal to authority (i.e., "I have a college degree, therefore I can never be wrong") and the ever-popular straw man (i.e., "you believe [something the person doesn't actually believe], therefore you're wrong").

If you don't have time for this, then don't post. If you think something is a waste of bandwidth, then don't post. If your argument relies on personal commentary targeting other members, then don't post.

Posting is optional. Courtesy is not.

The Politeness Police

I've discussed the reasoning behind this at length here: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Those who find my verbiage too opaque may prefer Bandit's version: Your attention is needed please...

In all cases, our goal is the same: to promote candid, civil discussion of the issues.

If anyone has any questions about this whatsoever, please don't hesitate to send me a U2U -- preferably before testing the limits of courteous discussion.

Now if I can be forgiven for posting somewhat afield of the topic myself, let's please focus on this:

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Thanks.

Originally posted by Majic
Doing The Wave

When I call "hand-waving", it's because I'm seeing arguments based on logical fallacies, such as ad hominem (i.e., "people who disagree with me are idiots"), appeal to authority (i.e., "I have a college degree, therefore I can never be wrong") and the ever-popular straw man (i.e., "you believe [something the person doesn't actually believe], therefore you're wrong").

If you don't have time for this, then don't post. If you think something is a waste of bandwidth, then don't post. If your argument relies on personal commentary targeting other members, then don't post.

Posting is optional. Courtesy is not.



Thanks.

I agree I could be more polite but I don't agree with the ad hom issue.

From earlier...

Originally posted by Majic
If you want to indulge in hand-waving and obtuse ad hominem attacks against other members, please do so somewhere else.

With all due respect, Majic, ad hominem would involve my depending on personal insults to refute his argument. You may have missed the many sections in my posts where I clearly addressed points raised in his posts. Look back to the scientific study on natural selection I provided, which saint believes does not exist, and he ignored the relevant points contained within...twice. I summarised many of them in my post earlier.

Ad hominem would take the form...

1. Saint says no evidence for natural selction exists.

2. I say saint is intellectually dishonest.

3. Therefore saint is wrong.

Whereas my approach actually took the form...

1. Saint says no evidence for NS exists.

2. I provide reliable peer-reviewed scientific evidence of natural selection from a scientific article as he requested.

3. Therefore saint is wrong.

we could also add..

4. Saint ignores the evidence

5. I highlight the actual evidence for him clearly.

6. Saint ignores the evidence a second time and moves to irrelevancies

7. I conclude saint is being intellectually dishonest.

Seems quite a fair approach. We could do the same for the fact fruit-flies were used for speciation studies by Coyne & Orr and the 2-LOT argument, which is a complete canard.

I hold my hands up to being quite unpolite, but saint is quite an evasive individual and his approach is not a fair approach to discussion. The hand-waving is all his. I haven't depending on appeals to authority, it is saint who believes all PhD holders deserve respect and must not be called idiots.

It all started from my bringing forth scientific evidence to support evolutionary theory, that was totally on-topic, from there saint was evasive, it is his normal form when faced with evidence that contradicts his position.

I never called saint an idiot, I called the PhD guy an idiot, because his arguments are weak, I assessed them and concluded he was an idiot. If I just said he was an idiot and relied on that, that would be pure ad hom.

There is evidence still outstanding that supports natural selection that has been ignored. I'll post it again, saint is off-topic, he is throwing out bad arguments against ToE, when the thread is about evidence for evolution.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by melatonin]

Topic: Not What We Think About Each Other

I understand what you're saying, so please understand what I'm saying: we need to focus on the topic.

If you disagree with or have any problems with the nature of another member's argument, that's fine, and I encourage you to pursue them.

Commentary of any kind directed at the person of another member, however, is unwelcome and further commentary of that nature will be subject to punitive action.

That's not open for debate.

Stay on topic.

Originally posted by Majic
Topic: Not What We Think About Each Other

I understand what you're saying, so please understand what I'm saying: we need to focus on the topic.

If you disagree with or have any problems with the nature of another member's argument, that's fine, and I encourage you to pursue them.

Commentary of any kind directed at the person of another member, however, is unwelcome and further commentary of that nature will be subject to punitive action.

That's not open for debate.

Stay on topic.

That's fair. Thank you Majic

Slincky you mentioned about rocks in Hawaii being tested and showing to be millions of years old when they had been freshly formed. You also mentioned that this was done via Carbon 14 testing I believe.

Carbon 14 decay is almost total by about 50,000 years. Thus there is no way that Carbon 14 can show something to be millions of years old. Additionally, Carbon 14 dating only works on organic compounds, that is something that used to be alive.

I won't even get started on Darwin's rumoured deathbed confession.

Face it Slincky, science will, in the end, triumph over superstition.

Originally posted by Flyingdog5000
Slincky you mentioned about rocks in Hawaii being tested and showing to be millions of years old when they had been freshly formed. You also mentioned that this was done via Carbon 14 testing I believe.

Is there such thing as a 'new rock', even if it is fresly formed? The Earth was formed at one point in time, thus making the material here all of a certain age.

Carbon 14 decay is almost total by about 50,000 years. Thus there is no way that Carbon 14 can show something to be millions of years old. Additionally, Carbon 14 dating only works on organic compounds, that is something that used to be alive.

Half life for Carbon 14 is a little over 5000 years. Other radioactive elements have much higher half lifes, from 5000 years for Carbon 14, up to 48 billion years for Rubidium.

I'm not sure who is using Carbon 14 dating methods for rocks, but I heard that Archaeologicalists like to use it.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by shaunybaby]

You see no evidence because there isn't any! All of the so called evidence merely demonstrates that evolution is one of many possibilities, and an extremely unlikely one at that!

Originally posted by speaker
You see no evidence because there isn't any!

Here you say there is no evidence.

Originally posted by speaker
All of the so called evidence..

Here you say there is evidence.

I find that quite odd.

Originally posted by speaker
merely demonstrates that evolution is one of many possibilities

State the obvious, why not? Scientology is one of the many possibilities, albeit not one I believe in. Christianity is another possibility, again not one I believe in. Evolution is another possibility, one I choose to believe in. It's just the one that makes most sense to me.

Originally posted by speaker
and an extremely unlikely one at that!

Evolution is 'unlikely' to it's own admittance. The chances of it happen are very small. However, in a universe that is infinite, possibility is non-existant, as everything that could happen, will happen. So to say evolution is 'unlikely', it doesn't take away any of it's credibility.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by speaker
You see no evidence because there isn't any!

Here you say there is no evidence.

Correct!

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by speaker
All of the so called evidence..

Here you say there is evidence.

I find that quite odd.

Incorrect! Note the inclusion of "so called."

Originally posted by shaunybaby
State the obvious, why not? Scientology is one of the many possibilities, albeit not one I believe in. Christianity is another possibility, again not one I believe in. Evolution is another possibility, one I choose to believe in. It's just the one that makes most sense to me.

Agreed, but the purpose of evidence is to demonstrate the only possibility. If there are other possibilities, then it's not evidence of one in particular, is it?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Evolution is 'unlikely' to it's own admittance. The chances of it happen are very small. However, in a universe that is infinite, possibility is non-existant, as everything that could happen, will happen. So to say evolution is 'unlikely', it doesn't take away any of it's credibility.

Yeah, that's a real strong argument. I'm sure scientist's fall back on that one all the time. (In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!)

Originally posted by speaker
Incorrect! Note the inclusion of "so called."

Even so, you're still saying there is evidence. Yet, merely saying that you believe the evidence is 'so-called'. Although it'd be good if you could shed some light on what you think exactly is 'so-called' evidence, or are you just putting 'all' the evidence of evolution in the 'so-called' group?

Originally posted by speaker
Agreed, but the purpose of evidence is to demonstrate the only possibility.

No it isn't. Evidence is used to support a statement/claim. In this case the claim is 'we shared a common ancestor with apes'. Evidence is there to support this claim.

There's always going to be other possibilities, no amount of evidence for evolution will change this.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Evolution is 'unlikely' to it's own admittance. The chances of it happen are very small. However, in a universe that is infinite, possibility is non-existant, as everything that could happen, will happen. So to say evolution is 'unlikely', it doesn't take away any of it's credibility.

Originally posted by speaker
Yeah, that's a real strong argument. I'm sure scientist's fall back on that one all the time. (In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!)

Well it's better to fall back on the infinite universe and the fact that possibility has no meaning in a place that is infinite, than to fall back on petty sarcasm.

Fact is you tried to take away the credibility of evolution by saying it is very unlikely to happen. But if the universe is infinite, then evolution will eventually occur, whatever the odds.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Even so, you're still saying there is evidence. Yet, merely saying that you believe the evidence is 'so-called'. Although it'd be good if you could shed some light on what you think exactly is 'so-called' evidence, or are you just putting 'all' the evidence of evolution in the 'so-called' group?

Wrong again! I'm not saying so called evidence is a specific category of evidence for evolution at all. I'm saying it is "SO CALLED" because scientists call it evidence for evolution. Pretty self explanatory I thought. This should answer your question above.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
No it isn't. Evidence is used to support a statement/claim. In this case the claim is 'we shared a common ancestor with apes'. Evidence is there to support this claim.

It is not the evidence which supports a statement, it's one's interpretation of what said evidence means that supports the statement. As mentioned before proof/evidence of a given statement must prove that statement is true, not a mere possibility of being true.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There's always going to be other possibilities, no amount of evidence for evolution will change this.

Here's your problem. It's not evidence FOR EVOLUTION, it's merely evidence. There is no evidence FOR EVOLUTION as you put it!

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Well it's better to fall back on the infinite universe and the fact that possibility has no meaning in a place that is infinite, than to fall back on petty sarcasm.

Fact is you tried to take away the credibility of evolution by saying it is very unlikely to happen. But if the universe is infinite, then evolution will eventually occur, whatever the odds.

This is going to come back to bite you. In order to avoid any contradictions you will have to refrain from ever opposing anything that is a possibility, because your argument dictates that all possibilities will at some point, be realised. Good luck! You'll need it.

Originally posted by speaker
Wrong again! I'm not saying so called evidence is a specific category of evidence for evolution at all. I'm saying it is "SO CALLED" because scientists call it evidence for evolution. Pretty self explanatory I thought. This should answer your question above.

But whether evidence helps to prove or disprove something, it's evidence nevertheless. Whether you like it or not, and whether you choose to accept this fact, there is evidence 'for' evolution.

Originally posted by speaker
It is not the evidence which supports a statement, it's one's interpretation of what said evidence means that supports the statement. As mentioned before proof/evidence of a given statement must prove that statement is true, not a mere possibility of being true.

There's a whole host of supporting evidence for evolution. For me it's the only possibility. The evidence fits in my mind, and seems like the most rational of all possibilities as to 'why we are here'.

However, some people choose think that evolution is wrong, and that their religion, or own beliefs are right.

No amount of evidence will ever change this. You will never have 100% of people who think evolution is a natural occuring process.

This doesn't mean the evidence 'for' evolution is any less important. Evidence is there, but you need to make the leap to say 'I trust that evidence', through other people's evidence and your own observations.

Originally posted by speaker
Here's your problem. It's not evidence FOR EVOLUTION, it's merely evidence. There is no evidence FOR EVOLUTION as you put it!

I've always said there is evidence 'for' evolution. Not sure why you seem to think I said the opposite.

Originally posted by speaker
This is going to come back to bite you. In order to avoid any contradictions you will have to refrain from ever opposing anything that is a possibility, because your argument dictates that all possibilities will at some point, be realised. Good luck! You'll need it.

Why is it going to come back and bite me?

My arguement dictates that on a long enough time scale, in this case it was 'infinite', infinite being forever, that possibility has no meaning.

For 'us', human beings, possibility is a factor, as the time scale we live on is not infinite. I could go my whole life, everyday playing poker, and never get a royal flush. This is possibility. The same goes for a golfer, who might go his who career and never get a hole in one. Possibility is in our lives because the time scale we're on is finite.

''Possibility has no meaning on a time scale that is infinite''.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
But whether evidence helps to prove or disprove something, it's evidence nevertheless. Whether you like it or not, and whether you choose to accept this fact, there is evidence 'for' evolution.

It's not evidence for evolution, as I said, it's merely evidence. Isn't that what this thread is all about?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
There's a whole host of supporting evidence for evolution. For me it's the only possibility. The evidence fits in my mind, and seems like the most rational of all possibilities as to 'why we are here'.

I told you it was going to come back to bite you. You are contradicting yourself. Now you say evolution is the only possibility, but previously there were many possibilities. All possibilities, at some point, become reality according to you. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've always said there is evidence 'for' evolution. Not sure why you seem to think I said the opposite.

I know you said this, but as I pointed out, it can only be evidence 'for' evolution if evolution was the only possibility, which it isn't, thus it is NOT evidence 'for' evolution.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
My arguement dictates that on a long enough time scale, in this case it was 'infinite', infinite being forever, that possibility has no meaning.

For 'us', human beings, possibility is a factor, as the time scale we live on is not infinite. I could go my whole life, everyday playing poker, and never get a royal flush. This is possibility. The same goes for a golfer, who might go his who career and never get a hole in one. Possibility is in our lives because the time scale we're on is finite.

''Possibility has no meaning on a time scale that is infinite''.

Where in evolutionary theory is there any mention of an infinite timescale? I have never come across this before.

Originally posted by speaker
It's not evidence for evolution, as I said, it's merely evidence. Isn't that what this thread is all about?

Evidence for evolution, supporting evidence, merely evidence, so-called evidence, give it whatever name you want, it's 'evidence' nonetheless.

This thread is here because despite there being evidence for evolution, someone thinks that evidence is lacking in validity, hence they started a topic.

Originally posted by speaker
I told you it was going to come back to bite you. You are contradicting yourself. Now you say evolution is the only possibility, but previously there were many possibilities. All possibilities, at some point, become reality according to you. Make up your mind.

Nothing has come back to bite me and I'm not contradicting myself. It's nice to see that, rather than putting down the problems you have with specific examples of evolution evidence, you're trying to attack my personal character by making out I'm a walking contradiction. Like I said in my previous post, maybe you can put down some specific pieces of evidence you think are 'so-called', so we can actually move this discussion forward.

TO ME evolution is the only possibility. TO SOMEONE ELSE Christianity is the only possibility. Lots of possibilities, but people being people, make choices. Maybe I have it half right and there is a God and he put evolution in motion. That's never going to be proven or disproven. Some things we take on faith.

I didn't say 'all' possibilities at some point become reality. On a finite time scale, such as a life of a human being, possibility dictates that I may never hit a hole in one on a golf course. However, if I were a human being that lived for an infinite amount of time, then I would eventually have a hole in one, whatever the odds were.

''On an infinite time scale possibility has no meaning''. This means that whatever the odds of evolution happening are, in an infinite universe, it will eventually happen. I've heard the arguement time and time again about how the odds of evolution happening are so slim, you have more chance of bla bla bla.. It's absolute rubbish.

Originally posted by speaker
I know you said this, but as I pointed out, it can only be evidence 'for' evolution if evolution was the only possibility, which it isn't, thus it is NOT evidence 'for' evolution.

It's still evidence 'for' evolution. It doesn't matter that there are other theories, beliefs, ideas, concepts as to 'why' and 'how' everything happened. There's evidence 'for' those as well. The Bible is evidence for the life and miracles of Jesus Christ, whether we choose to believe the validity of this evidence, and take a leap of faith in some cases, or not, that's personal choice.

Originally posted by speaker
Where in evolutionary theory is there any mention of an infinite timescale? I have never come across this before.

Here's a quote from you in an earlier post:

''evolution is one of many possibilities, and an extremely unlikely one at that!''

Hence, you must think that the possibility of evolution happening is quite unlikely. I didn't throw this in to the conversation, you decided to bring up this. Evolution doesn't mention anything about an infinite timescale, because it has nothing to do with evolution theory. You brought it up, so I chose to address your point.

There is no evidence for evolution. This is why the opening poster cannot see any. Neither you, nor anyone else here has shown otherwise.

You can say what you like about contradicting yourself. You can call it an attack on your personal character if you wish. I merely pointed out the contradiction in your statements. It's there for all to see. I also indicated that ALL of the 'so called' evidence is 'so called.' Try reading my posts in future.

There you go again. First you say evolution is the only possibility to you, then you concede that maybe God put evolution in place. If it's the only possibility to you, how can you concede the existence of an alternative possibility?

I'll pose the question again. Where in evolutionary theory is the timescale infinite?

Clearly you don't seem to understand the concept of using evidence as proof of a given hypothesis. Here is an example:

Possibility:
The Traffic Light is always Red.

"So Called" evidence for traffic light always being Red:
Several photgraphs showing traffic light being red.

Alternative Possibility:
Traffic Light is red sometimes and green sometimes.

In this example the evidence does not prove the first possibility, rather the interpretation of what the evidence means is being used to support the first possibility. This is exactly what you are doing.

The Bible is not evidence at all, but that's another debate.

Yet another contradictory statement. First you say possibility has no place in an infinite timescale, implying that it's an invalid basis to oppose evolution on. Then you say that evolution theory makes no mention of infinite timescales. Make up your mind!

[edit on 16-4-2007 by speaker]

Originally posted by speaker
There is no evidence for evolution. This is why the opening poster cannot see any. Neither you, nor anyone else here has shown otherwise.

1) The fossil record of change in earlier species.
2) The chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms.
3) The geographic distribution of related species.
4) The recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

The fossil record is an absolutely huge documentation of evolution.

Originally posted by speaker
You can say what you like about contradicting yourself. You can call it an attack on your personal character if you wish. I merely pointed out the contradiction in your statements. It's there for all to see. I also indicated that ALL of the 'so called' evidence is 'so called.' Try reading my posts in future.

I've not contradicted myself. Grow up.

Originally posted by speaker
There you go again. First you say evolution is the only possibility to you, then you concede that maybe God put evolution in place. If it's the only possibility to you, how can you concede the existence of an alternative possibility?

When I put money on a horse to win a race, the only possibility I think of is the outcome of that horse winning. There are other possibilities, but I focus on 'one'. Comprende?

Originally posted by speaker
I'll pose the question again. Where in evolutionary theory is the timescale infinite?

Nowhere. You brought up the subject, I chose to answer your questions on 'unlikelyness of evolution happening'.

Originally posted by speaker
Clearly you don't seem to understand the concept of using evidence as proof of a given hypothesis. Here is an example:

Cearly you don't read a thing I write. Because I asked you for 'specific' problems you have with evolution evidence. You are yet to give any. Maybe you just like to put all evolution evidence, no matter what it says, even if you haven't read it or understood it, in to the garbage can. That's okay, you're one of many.

Originally posted by speaker
This is exactly what you are doing.

The Bible is not evidence at all, but that's another debate.

Where did this come from?

Go back and read my post. You'll find I said the exact opposite. Something along the lines 'The Bible is evidence for the life and miracles of Jesus Christ'. So how you make that in to 'The Bible is not evidence at all' is beyond me. You're making up things now.

Originally posted by speaker
Yet another contradictory statement. First you say possibility has no place in an infinite timescale, implying that it's an invalid basis to oppose evolution on. Then you say that evolution theory makes no mention of infinite timescales. Make up your mind!

Evolution doesn't need to mention infinite timescales, as evolution has nothing to do with infinite timescales. You posed the question 'evolution is unlikely to happen'. I answered your question with a theory; the universe is inifite, therefore possibility has no meaning. Therefore if a natural process like evolution only comes in to work 1 in 6,000,000,000,000,000 times, then it would eventually occur somewhere in the universe. You decided to bring up possibility, I decided to answer your question, yet you still don't seem to grasp the concept.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
1) The fossil record of change in earlier species.
2) The chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms.
3) The geographic distribution of related species.
4) The recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

1) This is evidence that different species existed at different times, not evolution.
2) This is evidence that different species can have chemical and anatomical similarities, not evolution.
3) This is evidence that similar species existed in these geographic areas, not evolution.
4) This is evidence that genetic mutations can occur in these particular living organisms, not evolution.

I've grown up and the contradiction remains. It's there for all to see in your posts. Maybe you need to learn what contradiction means?

Whether you focus on one possibility or not, you are aware of the other possibilities, thus you don't believe the horse winning the race is the only possibility.

You chose to answer the possibility of evolution happening with the infinite timescale. You brought this up, not me.

I already told you which pieces of evidence for evolution I have a problem with. ALL OF THEM! That's why I say there isn't any evidence for evolution. I have even gone to the trouble of demonstrating what the 4 so called pieces of evidence for evolution you presented above are actually evidence of.

You brought up the Bible too. I'm just pointing out that the Bible is not evidence for the life and miracles of Jesus Christ. Not too difficult to understand.

Evolution has everything to do with a timescale! Why? Because you reckon evolution has already occurred to get us from the point of apes to humans!!! Is the timescale between when we were supposedly apes and now infinite? The only way your infinite timescale argument can hold up is if you believe evolution hasn't occurred yet, but will at some point in time in the infinite future!

The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step. The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.

Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed?

Even if it does not seem logical to you, evolutionists do believe this fable.

However, it is merely a belief-or rather a false faith-because they do not have even a single piece of evidence to verify their story. No single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird has ever been found. Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in elaborately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that. On the contrary, with their every effort, evolutionists themselves have demonstrated that no evolutionary process has ever occurred nor could ever have occurred at any time on earth.


Evolution Can Not be Verified in the Future Either

Seeing this, evolutionists can only console themselves by dreaming that science will somehow resolve all these dilemmas in time. However, that science should ever verify such an entirely groundless and illogical claim is out of the question no matter how many years may pass by. On the contrary, as science progresses it only makes the nonsense of evolutionists' claims clearer and plainer.

That is how it has been so far. As more details on the structure and functions of the living cell were discovered, it became abundantly clear that the cell is not a simple, randomly-formed composition, as was thought to be the case according to the primitive biological understanding of Darwin's time.

With the situation being so self-evident, basing the origins of life on extremely unlikely coincidences, and then defending these claims with insistence, may later become a source of great humiliation. As the real face of the evolution theory comes more and more into view and as public opinion comes to see the truth, it may not be long before the fanatical advocates of evolution will not be able to show their faces.

Originally posted by smartie
The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step. The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein. Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.

What a waste of a post - When will you people understand that the ToE has absolutely bugger all to do with the creation of anything, life, proteins, universes, ANYTHING.

Rant over

Heres a question for non evolutionists :-
Do you believe that it is possible for any living creature to evolve into another through genetics or any other method?



G

What a waste of a post - When will you people understand that the ToE has absolutely bugger all to do with the creation of anything, life, proteins, universes, ANYTHING.

What are you talking about!!!!!

READ THE POST PROPERLY.

NO LIFE CAN EXIST WITHOUT PROTEINS ETC.

THE BASIS FOR THE WHOLE EVOLUTION THEORY IS THAT LIFE STARTED IN A PRIMORDIAL SOUP.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ATS: General ATS discussion etiquette

www.abovetopsecret.com...

5) Most of all, do not use ALL CAPS in posts and thread titles

[edit on 17/4/07 by masqua]