0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So, I'm confused  What do you believe in when it comes to how we became how we are today? I find it really hard to believe both the creation theory or the evolution theory. They both seem to have many problems and errors to them.
Look at insects - they have not one thing in common with a fish yet both evolved from the same gene pool?
Quote from: Randy FlamethrowerLook at insects - they have not one thing in common with a fish yet both evolved from the same gene pool?Fish and insects share a common DNA design, and have many genes in common.That commonality of gene pool across species is what makes the mouse, a small fruit fly (Drosophila) and a small fish (Zebrafish) very useful tools in studying human genetics.
... How does a fish adapting to land ...
2. Did evolution process restart after the dinosaurs became extinct?
One of the difficulties of accepting evolutionism is its association with inert materialism. It is hard to imagine how by pure chance inert matter could transform itself in a complex stuff as the world of life.But there are some simple physical facts that are also not understandable if we are attached to a concept of inert matter as the basic fabric of being.Water poured in a communicating vessel will go up at the other end. If we think of water as being formed by molecules, and molecules being just very small pieces of matter, how to explain that it can go up against gravity? If instead of water, we place very fine powder, it will not go up at the other end, no matter how fine we mill it. It can only be understood when we accept that molecules are not inert but moves, and that movement is a property of matter, while not evident at a macroscopic level.Life is a form that "moving matter" can assume, and replicating DNA, and heart beating organisms are one of its forms, just as molecules.Evolution can be understood as the way that life "goes up", being able to become more complex as time goes by, what at a first glance is so strange as water climbing in a communicating vessel.
It has been known since the early work of Kauzmann (1959) and Tanford (1968) on the thermodynamics and kinetics of protein denaturation, that proteins are not very stable. In thermodynamic terms, the stabilities lie in the range 20 – 60 kJ/mol. However, H-bond energies are quoted also in the range 12 – 38 kJ/mol (Fersht, 1999). Comparing these figures, one is struck by their apparent incongruity – they mean that protein stability relies on a few H-bonds. It is even conceivable that some H-bonds are more stable than small proteins. For example, Finney (1982) gives the stability of lysozyme and ribonuclease as equivalent to 4 H-bonds each. One naturally asks, how can a molecule containing thousands of atoms be held together by a few H-bonds? I am not saying that these figures are wrong, but rather that another energetic mechanism for protein stability has to be found – one that has not been detected by classical methods.One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.
I feel that discussion of "creationism" and god have no place in a scientific forum