I think I can answer both of these at once: We aren't 'more evolved' than any other creature. Really, the only thing that evolution favors is the ability for a species to survive. In our case, we developed sentience and a dependency on our environment to survive, but that doesn't make us any better than other creatures. Let's look at ants, for example. They are everywhere; they are not endangered, not troubled, and they are so invasive and intent on colonizing new areas that they become a nuisance. They survive just as well as humans do, because instead of developing sentience they adopted the strategy of strength in numbers.
Without sentience, and with the current level of intelligence animals have instead, humans would still survive. We had no need for sentience, so why did we get it?
Why only give it to humans? And is anyone going to explain why God would use evolution to make things instead of poofing them into existence? Evolution is real, as can be seen through homologous structures and vestigial organs. Why include those things? An insertion is a type of mutation in which nucleotides are added to the "normal" DNA sequence. Point-mutations also pertain to your question; this is when a nucleotide is exchanged for another. These mutations can be detrimental or beneficial; regardless, the makeup of the DNA has changed. Over time, you can see how this can lead to changes in the phenotype of organisms. Another important thing to note is that more chromosomes does not necessarily equate more complexity. For example, a dog has 78 chromosomes, while a human has 46. This is because the sequence of the nucleotides within the DNA is what matters. They're like words; "hick" does not mean the same thing as "chick".
Though the nucleotides exchange for each other in the chromosomes, the amount of chromosomes in the genome is still constant. Therefore we would only have information of the final phenotypes, which you could basically call adaptation. However that doesn't provide us with more information, it only provides us with phenotypes. Since DNA exchange is due to environmental conditions (uv rays, heat) this whole process can easily be labeled as a micro evolution. However the transition between one or more phenotype is not clearly shown in evolution which is what I'm getting at. Also, I can understand micro evolution, where is the information of DNA exchange in things like macro evolution during the transition? EDIT: What can a single celled organism exchange its nucleotides with? Where are the phenotypes of amoebas?
That's why it takes time for things to evolve and become more complex. Any kind of mutation can lead to the cell handing out more complex instructions, especially in the next generation. Mutations can provide more (and different) information. You know about Darwin's findings on the Galapagos Islands; specifically about the finches. He saw adaptations in species living there... so imagine that over a super long period of time. DNA exchange is not solely attributed to outside factors. It can happen in DNA replication. You know, nothing is perfect; even cells make mistakes. The transition can be seen in some fossil "transitional forms". However, you're not going to find any of these species running about, because they were not suited to the environment as others were. Again, there is no macro evolution where you make a big jump from one species to another. It's all really micro evolution. Also, you have to understand that the cell can make more nucleotides. Example: During cell mitosis (actually the S phase, but whatever), the DNA must be replicated so the daughter cells have the DNA necessary to live. Since the cell is capable of making more nucleotides, it is possible for mutations to occur (insertions, point mutations, deletions, etc.). The phenotypes of amoebas are the observable traits of amoebas.
I believe in pizza being created , therefore there is a god because pizza is delicious. My god is "Poppa John." I think this will not be solved through this debate because people over many generations have asked the same question and if they couldnt get the answer in their life time what makes you believe in our meaningless life time that we will answer this question. Asking if theres a god or not is like asking a pile of dirt why its unhappy. its pointless and we'll never know.
1. Haha like the thing about Specists that gave me a laugh 2. I believe it's the second the law of thermodynamics you are talking about, that is the one most commonly used against evolution. Here's an argument against evolution by using this law.
Because survived better with it. It is like asking why ants are in such large numbers - if there were less ants the species would still survive, just not as well.
How about you use an actual argument against evolution, hm? Why don't you find a gene that does not follow any evolutionary trend? Go to pubmed.com and perform a BLAST search, tell me what you find. It didn't slow, it cooled. Less density -> less heat -> formation of subatomic particles. Gravity, are you kidding me? Gravity is too weak to bring together two dust particles let alone a subatomic particle. The strong nuclear force (or rather the electrostrong if you accept gauge symmetry) is responsible for the formation of atomic nuclei. What prevents the nuclear force from forming nuclei is intense heat. I was always raised that if you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk. It's better to remain silent and have them suspect your ignorance than for you to speak and them know it. Get educated on the subject to where you have base knowledge of high school physics and then come back when you want to talk about nuclear forces. You are blatantly wrong and ignoring evidence, and you think this turns people on to Christianity?
I would accept the theory of evolution before I would accept creationism. Evolution is backed up with many facts, as for creation, the bible. Evolution is a complex theory and obviously goes back to the beginning of the earth. Their may be some holes in the theory, but it makes sense nonetheless.
Me being agnostic, I'm probably a good person to talk, so here is the controversy: How about a great new idea, god created evolution, MY GOD!, I know this has been brought up before but this would be the answer to the clevel clogs question of where did the first matter come from.
so there are multiple answers to solving this question but we will never know which one, so this explaination might be the right answer.
Something should be accepted on the grounds that it is the correct answer, or the most correct determinable answer at the time. Not because it's a possible answer.
I could explain that a rainbow forms because of light refracting through drops of water. I could also explain that a rainbow forms because of light refracting through drops of water, and that rainbows are created by Leprechaun magic as a cheap transport alternative. Why make more assumptions than necessary? You can't accept evolution as something that could occur naturally and still attribute it to God. It's like walking into a forest, pointing at a tree at random and saying "Some guy probably planted that".
What are you talking about? Evolution is an established well documented fact. Saying something will never be known to man and that it is futile to try is exactly what the church said to Steven Hawking. You are slowing the progress of knowledge for the sake of preserving the ignorance that gives you reasonable doubt to assume you are right.
It's also like walking through a forest and saying. "Hey, what created the Matter that created the tree, surly it must have been something with power since matter could not have just "been" here since time began."