Is the dicovery of DNA contradicts the  idea of Evolutionists?
99741
Despite your poorly worded question, I think you are trying to ask if DNA refutes the idea of natural selection and evolution, right?  I think DNA, if anything, supports the idea of evolution.  In my simple understanding of evolution, I was able to take 1 protein from a turtle, human, lizard, snake, rat, monkey (using a protein/DNA sequence database, www.pubmed.com), and find how how different they are.  By using the accepted rate of mutation (1 base pair of DNA per million years), you can actually figure out how long ago did the species diverge simply based on random mutations.  By doing this, I made the evolutionary timeline that you see in textbooks all the time.  So in a way, I "proved" evolution by just doing something anybody can do with the resources available to me.\n\nThe part that I skip over in this program is that when a mutation is "bad" (something that would make it less likely to survive), that animal dies off.  Therefore, only "good" mutations will persist.  So when Watson and Crick in the 1950's "discovered" DNA, they in fact show how genes are passed on and how evolution can occur on a purely chemical level.\n\nI know this reply is a bit scattered, but if you do some research in scientific magazines/journals/text-books, evolution isn't some half-brained invention by anti-Christians (in fact most Evolutionists are Christians by the sheer fact that most Americans are Christian).  Evolution is a great theory in the sense it could easily be disproven, but it hasn't, therefore its the best we got until we find some greater truth.
1083318
As an "evolutionist" I side with science and logic that evolution is the method of speciation in organisms.\n\nMy personal opinion on why Creationists find fault with evolution is two-fold. First, a strict interpretation of the often-translated Bible. It is viewed as the ultimate authority and a "first-hand" account of what happened throughout history. \n\nThere are several problems with this, most importantly the translation of words from the original text, into English, which may change the true meaning of words, or more often their isn't a word in English that fits the original word. A good example of this is in Genesis, the main accounting of creation for theists. The word translated into "day" from the original text may have different meanings, it could literally mean a day, or it could mean periods of time. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this throughout the bible, but the problem is clear, logically, you cannot maintain a strict interpretation if your reading a interpretation. Also the first hand account isn't really a first hand account, many of the scriptures are oral traditions that were written down long after the events transpired, many were written a few hundred years after the people in the passed away. We've all played whisper-down-the-lane. \n\nSecondly, the scientific account of life, and it's origins (which isn't considered part of the Theory of Evolution by the way) doesn't mention, and doesn't require a god to exist for it to happen. Unable to separate scientific thought, from religious ones, some Creationists find evolution has to be incorrect because it makes no mention of a Creator. Really, ANY kind of science can never make mention of any kind of God, it is a fundamentally unprovable idea. Nevertheless, because of this, Evolution cannot and will not be accepted by many believers.\n\nPersonally, there is no reason that both ideas cannot be. While the account of Genesis cannot be true, if a God does exist he has created everything else through natural means, it would only make sense that he would do the same in creating life. The difference is, only one can be taught as a science, the other is philosophy.
866041
I think some of the answers confirm your argument. There seems to be ignorance of the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. That evolutionary change in species occurs is definitely not in question-there is no doubt whatsoever based on the extensive fossil record and physiological similarities between species-so those who make a blanket statement about evolution not being a fact are talking rubbish. Only the theory-the mechanisms involved are subject to any conjecture although there is no competing theory to challenge natural selection so that is accepted as fact by 99% of biologists. Creationism has nothing to contribute to science. It can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
481417
I could see 99%+.  I expect that they're doing a bit of statistical extrapolation (can't test everybody) and taking the upper range on their margin-of-error for journalistic sensationalism.  So, overall, probably.  \n\nConsider: DNA is DNA for every living thing (except perhaps a virus), so variations outside of a certain threshhold result in a different creature -- like aardvarks and komodo dragons.  Considering the diversity of life on earth, it should come as little surprise that the threshhold on DNA between one species and another is rather small (at least in comparison to the whole).
935522
"Creation" and "Evolution" are two different processes, I think.\n\nThey are easier to understand for me if I put them into different "frameworks".\n\nIf there shall be some "beginning" of every item in the world, there shall be also "Creation". But, in opposite, if we are satisfied with the idea of constant continuation - without any beginning and any end - we do not have to think this idea anymore.\n\n"Evolution" is something which can be proved everyday. I work as a microbiologist and small modifications of living creatures is very obvious for me.\n\nThere are still many open questions which can be placed between "Creation" and Evolution". One of my "favourite problem" is the beginning of DNA-based living creatures: DNA needs enzymes to be constructed, and enzymes need DNA to be produced. Which is the probability of an event where both DNA and enzymes (and such forms of them which are interconnected!) can be formed exactly in the same time? 0,00000000000000000000....%?\n\nAs a conclusion: I thrust on "Evolution" but I see also "Creation", managed by "X" (you can replace "X" by "God", "Engineer" or whatever you like). They are not alternatives for ones thinking; they have a peaceful coexistence in our world.
755030
Technically, and scientifically it is a theory. Theory doesn't  mean that it isn't true though, it simply means it is the most widely accepted opinion of the scientific community until someone can come along with a better theory or disprove the theory.\n\n"God created Us" is not a scientifically accepted proof against the theory of evolution. This is because without evolution DNA mutation makes no sense, even though it is a well observed phenomena.\n\nFossils also would have no explanation.\n\nAnd as a teacher, it would be best to say that it is okay to not believe every theory, because many past theorems have been proved wrong, but that he or she should maybe look into evolution a little more before casting a judgement.
891014
As much as I want to believe my religion, I feel that the evolution theory is correct . If the bible was written incorrectly or abridged by the writer of genesis to not include dinosaurs, and the timeframe infered between Adam and Eve and the creation of the Earth were different, then it would be possible that both theories are correct.
930216
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.\n\nThere may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field.  I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design.  Such evidence as:\n\nThe progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.\nMicrobial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA\nComplex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA\nFirst multicellular animals 670 MYA\nShell-bearing animals 540 MYA\nVertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA\nAmphibians 350 MYA\nReptiles 310 MYA\nMammals 200 MYA\nNonhuman primates 60 MYA\nEarliest apes 25 MYA\nAustralopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA\nModern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA\nOne can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.  Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly.  Why?  Because they don't want accurate results.  Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.\n\nStructural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all. \n\nThe distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.\n\nSimilarities During Development \nEmbryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, fo
922140
It’s hard for human beings to grasp every phase of evolution, but that really isn’t evolution’s problem, especially when we are talking about the small scale things.  It’s hard to actually picture the change, but just because someone (like me) doesn’t have the imagination to picture it, it doesn’t matter.  Evolution doesn’t need me to understand or even believe in it.  Aleins did not create eukaryotic cells, don’t be silly.  Then again, we can't disprove it so it must be true (that's the logic christian like to throw out there as far as god goes so it can work with alein's too, right?) lol :)
671450
Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past! \nBy the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
681839
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
1124535
this is exactly why i am a creationist. i've studied microbiology and i cannot see how RNA or DNA could have invented itself.
868498
I completely agree with you. I've done my research and evolution in reality has not been proven. It is the media that propagates the myth of evolution, even brainwashing children with pictures of monkey-men in textbooks to do it. They've even go so far as to make whole skeletal structures of out of small bone fragments in order to provide "physical proof" of evolution, like with "Piltdown Man", a fraud  that was not discovered as a fraud until 40 years after it was made. It's a big lie, one of the greatest frauds in history. Even Darwin said, "If evolution has occurred, where are the missing links?"\nBelief in God and science is completely compatible. In fact, the Bible has a lot of scientific foreknowledge that "scientists" didn't even discover until centuries later, even just in the last century when it was right in front of them all along.\nThe Bible says it was God who made everything, and that it was God who established laws that hold everything in its place. Hence to see science for what it really is is to see the fingerprint of God.
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
977079
huh, yeah im not a creationist either, but i dont think that you can fully understand the stuff without an in depth study of scientific material. \n\nthere is a book called darwins black box by michael behe.  he doesnt call himself a creationist, hes a biochemist that after looking at plenty of evidence has alot of questions and decided to write a book. it basically is challenging evolution. \n\nfrom what i understand the missing links (transitional species) are not there in the fossil record.  thats why you have guys that come up with the punct eq theory, etc.  there are some that say they have found a couple missing links here and there, but it doesnt explain the massive amount of life that supposedly changes from one thing to another. \n\nanother guy is sennapathy (sp.), he is a south asia indian guy that has the same questions and different conclusions.  hes a genetic scientist.\n\ngranted there are examples of mutations, like in viruses and the like, that one could point to, but the data for large scale biology is still sketchy
371166
Evolution doesn't happen, one species doesn't evolve into another species.\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only two possible ways to explain the origin of life-either chance or natural law. But information theory provides a powerful tool for discounting both of these explanations. Both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content."\n\nThe sequence of basis in DNA can not be explained by natural law because there are no chemical laws that make any sequence more likely than another. At the same time these sequences are so complicated that they can not be explained by chance.\n\n"Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10. Such a number, if written out, would read: \n\n480,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000. \n\n"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number
792821
Yes. See the links below. I highly encourage everyone who doubts evolution to spend a little time browsing the "tree of life  web" site www.tolweb.org. Look both at the tree diagrams, showing how life has evolved into different species, but also look at the titles of the papers that are referenced on each page. For example, from the Primates page, there are papers with these titles:\n\n"Toward a phylogenetic classification of primates based on DNA evidence complemented by fossil evidence. "\n"A molecular view of primate phylogeny and important systematic and evolutionary questions. "\n"Molecular timing of primate divergences as estimated by two nonprimate calibration points."\n"The oldest known anthropoid postcranial fossils and the early evolution of higher primates."\n"Molecular evidence on primate phylogeny from DNA sequences. "\n\nThere is a huge body of scientific literature that doesn't just say "we think we evolved from apes". It explains in great detail the evolution of all life, and shows where humans fit in the families of hominids, primates, and mammals. There is a great deal of evidence, not just from fossil evidence, but from DNA evidence. The DNA evidence is now far more powerful than the fossil evidence.