• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Creation Versus Evolution

Hieru said:
Obviously, when you asked why parthenogenesis occurs, you were enquiring about what circumstances would result in this kind of adaption. Arguably this is a question about how a particular evolutionary mechanism originated and not why. I suppose that it is a matter of perspective and any further debate about why evolution functions would be a matter of semantics.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Semantics is probably the long and short of it. "Why" to you evidently means the above. Where as "why" to me and possibly other laymen simply means "why?" A question that is capable of being devoid of religious of philosophical consideration, (much as a child asking why, not a question asked with any religious or philosophical agenda) though from your standpoint it would seem you share a common conceit with the principles of faith in that "ours is not to reason why."
 
ghostdog19 said:
........though from your standpoint it would seem you share a common conceit with the principles of faith in that "ours is not to reason why."

Only within the bounds of evolution. As you know evolutionary theory is concerned with the origin of species; it takes the existence of life as a given and attempts to explain the mechanisms that account for the development and diversity of life on Earth.

The question of how life began does need to be studied and addressed, but within it's own discipline. Research into this subject is still in its infancy and we have yet to develop a firm theory on the origin of life. It is more than likely that in 100 years time most people will accept evolutionary theory and forums such as this will be discussing Creation vs Abiogenesis (or something similar).

I may not be concerned with why we are here, as this would imply some kind of predestined agenda, but I am incredibly interested in how life came to be. Faith isn't even on my agenda.
 
I agree in part with what Hieru says about evolution - it is a process and not the origin of life (just a theory on the most likely origin of how things are at the moment).

How evolution started (from point zero if you like) and what came before that and yes - ultimately - why, is possibley outside of evolution as a process.

So then, let us go to point zero and before and find out why!

Now then, anybody got a time machine? ;)
 
Well this is what Carl Zimmer has to say about it.
How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
Carl Zimmer

For the past 50 years, scientists have attacked the question of how life began in a pincer movement. Some approach it from the present, moving backward in time from life today to its simpler ancestors. Others march forward from the formation of Earth 4.55 billion years ago, exploring how lifeless chemicals might have become organized into living matter.
Working backward, paleontologists have found fossils of microbes ###### back at least 3.4 billion years. Chemical analysis of even older rocks suggests that photosynthetic organisms were already well established on Earth by 3.7 billion years ago. Researchers suspect that the organisms that left these traces shared the same basic traits found in all life today. All free-living organisms encode genetic information in DNA and catalyze chemical reactions using proteins. Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, it's hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But it's just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.
Experiments now suggest that earlier forms of life could have been based on a third kind of molecule found in today's organisms: RNA. Once considered nothing more than a cellular courier, RNA turns out to be astonishingly versatile, not only encoding genetic information but also acting like a protein. Some RNA molecules switch genes on and off, for example, whereas others bind to proteins and other molecules. Laboratory experiments suggest that RNA could have replicated itself and carried out the other functions required to keep a primitive cell alive.
Only after life passed through this "RNA world," many scientists now agree, did it take on a more familiar cast. Proteins are thousands of times more efficient as a catalyst than RNA is, and so once they emerged they would have been favored by natural selection. Likewise, genetic information can be replicated from DNA with far fewer errors than it can from RNA.
Other scientists have focused their efforts on figuring out how the lifeless chemistry of a prebiotic Earth could have given rise to an RNA world. In 1953, working at the University of Chicago, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that experiments could shed light on this question. They ran an electric current through a mix of ammonia, methane, and other gases believed at the time to have been present on early Earth. They found that they could produce amino acids and other important building blocks of life.
Today, many scientists argue that the early atmosphere was dominated by other gases, such as carbon dioxide. But experiments in recent years have shown that under these conditions, many building blocks of life can be formed. In addition, comets and meteorites may have delivered organic compounds from space.
Just where on Earth these building blocks came together as primitive life forms is a subject of debate. Starting in the 1980s, many scientists argued that life got its start in the scalding, mineral-rich waters streaming out of deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Evidence for a hot start included studies on the tree of life, which suggested that the most primitive species of microbes alive today thrive in hot water. But the hot-start hypothesis has cooled off a bit. Recent studies suggest that heat-loving microbes are not living fossils. Instead, they may have descended from less hardy species and evolved new defenses against heat. Some skeptics also wonder how delicate RNA molecules could have survived in boiling water. No single strong hypothesis has taken the hot start's place, however, although suggestions include tidal pools or oceans covered by glaciers.
Research projects now under way may shed more light on how life began. Scientists are running experiments in which RNA-based cells may be able to reproduce and evolve. NASA and the European Space Agency have launched probes that will visit comets, narrowing down the possible ingredients that might have been showered on early Earth.
Most exciting of all is the possibility of finding signs of life on Mars. Recent missions to Mars have provided strong evidence that shallow seas of liquid water once existed on the Red Planet--suggesting that Mars might once have been hospitable to life. Future Mars missions will look for signs of life hiding in under-ground refuges, or fossils of extinct creatures. If life does turn up, the discovery could mean that life arose independently on both planets--suggesting that it is common in the universe--or that it arose on one planet and spread to the other. Perhaps martian microbes were carried to Earth on a meteorite 4 billion years ago, infecting our sterile planet.

Source;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/89
 
QuaziWashboard said:
Well this is what Carl Zimmer has to say about it...........

That's a pretty good summary of the various approaches being used to tackle the question of how life began on Earth.

Wikipedia also has a fairly comprehensive page on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Of particular interest is the section on "Bubble Theory", which explains how the first cellular structures may have come into existence.

There are also other alternatives to the "Hot Start" and "RNA World" hypotheses, including "Clay Theory" and "Panspermia" (which has already been discussed on various other FT threads).

When considering the models for the origin of life mentioned above, it should be clear why Evolution and The Origin of Life are two separate areas of research. The two fields may overlap, but the mechanisms described in evolutionary theory only account for how life behaves when it exists. The various theories concerning the genesis of life are focused on the mechanisms that brought life into existence. The most obvious evolutionary mechanism to mention is Natural Selection. This can only be applied to living things; it does not apply to an understanding of how organic life may have formed from inorganic matter.
 
Hieru said:
"Panspermia" (which has already been discussed on various other FT threads).

When considering the models for the origin of life mentioned above, it should be clear why Evolution and The Origin of Life are two separate areas of research. The two fields may overlap, but the mechanisms described in evolutionary theory only account for how life behaves when it exists.
Right, gotcha. I quite like the Panspermia (that's not Pan's Sperm is it?) notion.
 
ghostdog19 said:
I quite like the Panspermia (that's not Pan's Sperm is it?) notion.

As interesting a Panspermia is, if this theory were proven, it would simply lead to more difficult questions. Instead of looking for the origin of life on Earth, we would have to find the origin of the organisms brought to Earth and then figure out how that life came into existence.

The big problem with Panspermia is that evolutionary research indicates that life on Earth probably originated from a single common organism. The most obvious evidence of this is the fact that DNA is a fundamental building block for life on Earth.

I would argue that DNA is a parochial evolutionary mechanism which is unique to Earth. If this is the case then life that originated in different parts of the universe should be built around alternatives to DNA.

Since comets and meteors arrive from various points in the universe, it stands to reason that if life was transferred to Earth from other planetary bodies, we should find organisms living today that are built around various different alternatives to DNA.

We don't find alternatives to DNA in nature, so it is more than likely that life on Earth originated on Earth.
 
Hieru said:
an understanding of how organic life may have formed from inorganic matter.

That understanding is one I look forward to somebody putting into words - inorganic into organic and possibly beyond...
 
Hieru said:
We don't find alternatives to DNA in nature, so it is more than likely that life on Earth originated on Earth.

or we haven't found them yet?
 
ghostdog19 said:
Hieru said:
We don't find alternatives to DNA in nature, so it is more than likely that life on Earth originated on Earth.

or we haven't found them yet?

There's a some viruses that use RNA as genetic materials, but things fom the bottom of the ocean and bacteria from deep in the earth all use DNA, even the so-called extremophile bugs, so it's pretty strong evidence that DNA and RNA are the universal genetic materials on Earth. However, if we find something alive that doesn't use either, it'd be a pretty good candidate for having an ET origin...
 
Timble2 said:
ghostdog19 said:
Hieru said:
We don't find alternatives to DNA in nature, so it is more than likely that life on Earth originated on Earth.

or we haven't found them yet?

There's a some viruses that use RNA as genetic materials, but things fom the bottom of the ocean and bacteria from deep in the earth all use DNA, even the so-called extremophile bugs, so it's pretty strong evidence that DNA and RNA are the universal genetic materials on Earth. However, if we find something alive that doesn't use either, it'd be a pretty good candidate for having an ET origin...

Except, if we do find organisms on Earth that utilize something other than DNA and RNA, they must be relatively recent arrivals, otherwise alternatives to DNA and RNA would be abundant in Earths ecology.
 
Hieru said:
Except, if we do find organisms on Earth that utilize something other than DNA and RNA, they must be relatively recent arrivals, otherwise alternatives to DNA and RNA would be abundant in Earths ecology.
Do you mean new arrivals as in new species being discovered? (re: Crypto forum for the latest discoveries) or do you mean landing attached to a comet?
 
ghostdog19 said:
Hieru said:
Except, if we do find organisms on Earth that utilize something other than DNA and RNA, they must be relatively recent arrivals, otherwise alternatives to DNA and RNA would be abundant in Earths ecology.
Do you mean new arrivals as in new species being discovered? (re: Crypto forum for the latest discoveries) or do you mean landing attached to a comet?

Any 'as yet' undiscovered species must still be part of the Earth's ecosystem, so they would be expected to utilize DNA/RNA. All organisms on this planet are interdependent upon each other in one way or another, so all life on Earth must be compatible in order to survive. For instance, an Earthbound virus will only survive by interacting with other organisms that originate on Earth. If you take the same virus to another planet, with a different ecosystem, which isn't built around DNA/RNA, the virus would not survive*.

For individual species of non DNA/RNA based life forms to exist on Earth, they would need a whole host of supporting organisms that share the same alternative to DNA/RNA. As a result, you could never find one unique species that did not share the same building blocks used by all other life on Earth.

I suppose that it is feasible that some kind of non DNA/RNA life forms could exist in complete isolation deep inside the Earth, within some kind of hermetically sealed subterranean cave. However, given that we find bacteria living in solid rock, I doubt if such an isolated ecology could survive without being contaminated by some form of DNA/RNA based organism.

As you can see any non DNA/RNA life forms discovered on Earth must inevitably be extra terrestrial in origin, having arrived via a comet, meteor, or some other form of transportation. Without any similar life forms to feed on, it is possible that such ET life wouldn't survive for long. Taking this into consideration, Panspermia seems even more unlikely.

*Anyone familiar with H.G. Wells' 'War of the Worlds' should now understand that the downfall of the Martians would not occur as it does in the book. Earth-bound viruses and bacteria would simply be incompatible with Martian life forms.
 
Hieru said:
Anyone familiar with H.G. Wells' 'War of the Worlds' should now understand that the downfall of the Martians would not occur as it does in the book. Earth-bound viruses and bacteria would simply be incompatible with Martian life forms.[/size]

Nitpick: they would if the two are related, eg by organisms from Mars arriving by meterorite being the origin of life on Earth, or vice versa.

And these days NASA are extremely keen to avoid any kind of contamination from 'alien' sources. It would be a bit embarassing if we all got wiped out by an alien virus that just got lucky, wouldn't it?
 
If life did originally evolve in some distant part of space, it may well have existed for millions of years (or more) before the Earth was formed. During this vast period of time, natural selection would favour the most efficient replicators.

So it may be that the DNA/RNA we know came out as top dog in this ancient process, and has effectively eliminated less efficient mechanisms ever since.

If so, then all DNA in the universe is built on the same pattern, and any 'new' DNA now arriving here now is simply another variant of what we already have.

Elsewhere I suggested that "The problem with creationist thinking (IMHO!) is a lack of imagination, in the sense of being unable to visualise the vast arena (both geographically and temporarily) that evolution has to operate in."

But if you expand this idea to include the whole cosmos (as Hoyle and Wicky did) then the argument has even more force. The most efficient method for replication may have been arrived at long, long ago, and life throughout the cosmos is now based on the same basic mechanism.
 
rynner said:
If life did originally evolve in some distant part of space, it may well have existed for millions of years (or more) before the Earth was formed. During this vast period of time, natural selection would favour the most efficient replicators.

So it may be that the DNA/RNA we know came out as top dog in this ancient process, and has effectively eliminated less efficient mechanisms ever since.

If you apply this to life on Earth, then what you say is perfectly plausible. It is certainly possible that life took form a number of times and DNA/RNA life forms simply happen to have been the most successful organisms on our planet.

Given the size of the Universe I find it incredibly difficult to see how DNA and RNA would become the most prevalent building block for life in the universe. Surely whenever an opportunity for life arises, all alternatives have an equal chance at becoming the dominant evolutionary mechanism on a particular planet.

As far as I can see the only way around this would be if:

a) DNA/RNA was created during the Big Bang.

or

b) DNA/RNA was deliberately seeded throughout the universe by some unknown force or being.

Neither of these seem particularly plausible and a belief in either scenario requires a giant leap of faith. Without hard evidence I really can't take either suggestion seriously.

rynner said:
Elsewhere I suggested that "The problem with creationist thinking (IMHO!) is a lack of imagination, in the sense of being unable to visualise the vast arena (both geographically and temporarily) that evolution has to operate in."

I agree with the sentiment, but you appear to have overlooked your own advice. Contemplating a universe that is only based around DNA/RNA is somewhat lacking in imagination.

rynner said:
The most efficient method for replication may have been arrived at long, long ago, and life throughout the cosmos is now based on the same basic mechanism.

The universe is not static and new stars are 'born' in the far reaches of the cosmos. Some of these stars will be orbited by planets, so new possible opportunities for life must be arising all of the time. Even if these planets are seeded with DNA/RNA, who is to say that such organic matter will arrive before other alternatives have taken hold - alternatives that are stronger and more suited the ecology of one of these new planets.

I also think that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that all life must be similar to that which is found on Earth. I don't think that DNA/RNA would be particularly good at building an ecology on a planet that is more suited to silicon based life.

With all due respect, a belief that DNA/RNA is the universal basis of all life throughout the cosmos is equivalent to believing that the Sun rotates around the Earth.
 
Hieru said:
Surely whenever an opportunity for life arises, all alternatives have an equal chance at becoming the dominant evolutionary mechanism on a particular planet.
But, as I hinted, Hoyle and Wicky went much further - planets are tiny specs of dust, relative to molecular clouds, which are abundant throughout the universe. (The fact that we live on a planet tends to distort our perspective on what is possible in the wider cosmos.)
rynner said:
Elsewhere I suggested that "The problem with creationist thinking (IMHO!) is a lack of imagination, in the sense of being unable to visualise the vast arena (both geographically and temporarily) that evolution has to operate in."

I agree with the sentiment, but you appear to have overlooked your own advice. Contemplating a universe that is only based around DNA/RNA is somewhat lacking in imagination.
You put in the word 'only' - I see life as a very minor part of the universe as a whole, on the evidence we have so far.

rynner said:
The most efficient method for replication may have been arrived at long, long ago, and life throughout the cosmos is now based on the same basic mechanism.

The universe is not static and new stars are 'born' in the far reaches of the cosmos. Some of these stars will be orbited by planets, so new possible opportunities for life must be arising all of the time. Even if these planets are seeded with DNA/RNA, who is to say that such organic matter will arrive before other alternatives have taken hold - alternatives that are stronger and more suited the ecology of one of these new planets.
Planets again, eh? ;)

I also think that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that all life must be similar to that which is found on Earth. I don't think that DNA/RNA would be particularly good at building an ecology on a planet that is more suited to silicon based life.

With all due respect, a belief that DNA/RNA is the universal basis of all life throughout the cosmos is equivalent to believing that the Sun rotates around the Earth.
Where did I speak of 'belief'? I used the word 'may' several times to indicate that I was just exploring one hypothesis.

And the hypothesis I was exploring was that all life on Earth might be similar to that in the rest of the cosmos, and not vice-versa!
 
wembley8 said:
Hieru said:
Anyone familiar with H.G. Wells' 'War of the Worlds' should now understand that the downfall of the Martians would not occur as it does in the book. Earth-bound viruses and bacteria would simply be incompatible with Martian life forms.[/size]

Nitpick: they would if the two are related, eg by organisms from Mars arriving by meterorite being the origin of life on Earth, or vice versa.

If we take Panspermia seriously, then this is a good point. Unfortunately the evidence to support life arriving on Earth from Mars is rather inconclusive, so I don't think it would be wise to accept or discount this possibility

wembley8 said:
And these days NASA are extremely keen to avoid any kind of contamination from 'alien' sources. It would be a bit embarassing if we all got wiped out by an alien virus that just got lucky, wouldn't it?

Again, this would only apply if life on Earth was seeded from elsewhere. Unfortunately NASA have fallen into the common mistake of viewing possibly alien life from an anthropic interpretation of the universe.

All the same, I suppose it is better to be safe than sorry.
 
Hieru said:
I don't think that DNA/RNA would be particularly good at building an ecology on a planet that is more suited to silicon based life.
Well, no, since DNA is carbon based.

But silicon based life is at present just a theory, and we have no evidence that it is viable, or actually exists anywhere.
 
rynner said:
Hieru said:
Surely whenever an opportunity for life arises, all alternatives have an equal chance at becoming the dominant evolutionary mechanism on a particular planet.
But, as I hinted, Hoyle and Wicky went much further - planets are tiny specs of dust, relative to molecular clouds, which are abundant throughout the universe. (The fact that we live on a planet tends to distort our perspective on what is possible in the wider cosmos.)

I agree, it was unwise to only mention planets as possible environments that may harbour life. As well as moons, asteroids and other solid bodies, it is possible that life could exist in the vacuum of space or even within stars. If alien life is abundant in the universe, I would expect it to thrive in all sorts of environments that most people wouldn't even consider.

Having said that, I still doubt that DNA/RNA would be a useful mechanism for any alien life forms living in such unusual and harsh environments. DNA/RNA based organisms are particularly well adapted to the Earths ecology that they would struggle to survive anywhere else.

rynner said:
Hieru said:
rynner said:
Elsewhere I suggested that "The problem with creationist thinking (IMHO!) is a lack of imagination, in the sense of being unable to visualise the vast arena (both geographically and temporarily) that evolution has to operate in."

I agree with the sentiment, but you appear to have overlooked your own advice. Contemplating a universe that is only based around DNA/RNA is somewhat lacking in imagination.
You put in the word 'only' - I see life as a very minor part of the universe as a whole, on the evidence we have so far.

But you were suggesting that DNA/RNA may be the only/main building block for life that exists in the universe. I was merely pointing out a possible problem with such an idea.

rynner said:
And the hypothesis I was exploring was that all life on Earth might be similar to that in the rest of the cosmos, and not vice-versa!

That's the same thing isn't it?

The problem with such a hypothesis is that it is clouded by the fact that the only life we know of exists on Earth. It is extremely common for people to assume that life elsewhere must be similar to what we know on our own planet...........just look at all of the humanoid, reptilian and insectoid aliens that crop up in sci-fi. The truth is probably far stranger, but from your previous post, I suspect you already understand this.
 
rynner said:
Hieru said:
I don't think that DNA/RNA would be particularly good at building an ecology on a planet that is more suited to silicon based life.
Well, no, since DNA is carbon based.

But silicon based life is at present just a theory, and we have no evidence that it is viable, or actually exists anywhere.

I wouldn't even go as far as to say that silicon-based life is theoretically possible. It is hypothetically plausible, but as you say, we really can't make any conclusive statements until we come across such life. The same can be said for the existence of any alien life forms; we just don't know if any life exists 'out there'. Once we find something, we will have something concrete to discuss.

If we are lucky the Europa mission will be resurrected and we might have some answers within the next decade. If we do find life on Europa and it happens to be DNA/RNA based, then that will be the first ever example of any viable evidence that supports panspermia. Then again, we may be dealing with an evolutionary mechanism that we are currently unaware of.
 
Bringing the subject back to earthly evolution, has anyone managed to come up with any anomalous evidence that undermines evolutionary theory?

Almond13 did promise to deliver, but no relevant evidence has been forthcoming.

Anyone?...........
 
Hieru said:
Bringing the subject back to earthly evolution, has anyone managed to come up with any anomalous evidence that undermines evolutionary theory?

Almond13 did promise to deliver, but no relevant evidence has been forthcoming.

Anyone?...........
I've just spent all morning searching the internet for it and honestly can't find anything that would appear to stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that on this particular search, I couldn't find any. But a friend of mine did come up with a hypothetical situation where creation could be seen as the source of a civilisation.
Imagine a world where the intelligent inhabitants have made artifical intelligence that thinks, feels and reproduces itself. This 'could' be said to constitute intelligent life even though it's non organic. Now imagine that something happens to that world that causes all organic life to die out. The resulting artificial civilisation of robots, androids, ect. could be construed as being the result of creation, being 'created' by the earlier civilisation. It could even result in a form of religion that worships their creators. Of course, this doesn't answer the question of how the original life on this hypothetical planet occured in the first place, but would this matter to the artifical intelligence? After all, those who claim that some kind of deity is responsible for life here don't seem to be concerned with who or what created God, although this hypothetical artificial race would have proof of their creators existence in records and remains of the earlier civilisation, unless maybe they had to abandon their planet shortly before it was destroyed, leaving all proof behind.
 
QuaziWashboard said:
Hieru said:
Bringing the subject back to earthly evolution, has anyone managed to come up with any anomalous evidence that undermines evolutionary theory?

Almond13 did promise to deliver, but no relevant evidence has been forthcoming.

Anyone?...........
I've just spent all morning searching the internet for it and honestly can't find anything that would appear to stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that on this particular search, I couldn't find any.

I can't say I'm surprised. With the recent popularity of ID and the US driven Creationist propaganda, supporters of evolution have been driven into overdrive and they have addressed most of the criticism creationists/IDers have levelled at evolution.

The only criticism they can't address is the blind beliefs that are driven by an insistence that 'Go did it'. Oh well :roll:

QuaziWashboard said:
But a friend of mine did come up with a hypothetical situation where creation could be seen as the source of a civilisation.
Imagine a world where the intelligent inhabitants have made artifical intelligence that thinks, feels and reproduces itself..........

This is a valid point and suggestions like this remind me of how sci-fi can provide a forum for intellectual speculation about some of the important questions that humanity has to ask. If only shows like Torchwood would rise to the challenge.

Anyway, as I say, you do have a valid point. I suppose it is possible that life could have been engineered and seeded throughout the universe. It is interesting to speculate about such ideas, but we currently don't have any evidence to support such a hypothesis. In fact, evolutionary theory, and the evidence that supports it, would suggest that such a scenario is highly improbable.

QuaziWashboard said:
After all, those who claim that some kind of deity is responsible for life here don't seem to be concerned with who or what created God, although this hypothetical artificial race would have proof of their creators existence........

I must admit that this is the most puzzling aspect of Creationism. When you ask a Creationist about the origin of God, they usually say that 'he just is' and that questioning 'why' or 'how' is somehow blasphemous..........yet they have no problem asking 'why' or 'how' evolution functions. Not only is this terribly unscientific, but it is the sort of response that I would expect from ignorant parents who simply don't know the answers to questions posed by an inquisitive child.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dr_wu said:
Here's Lloyd Pye's answer on the intervention theory.....by aliens in his theory.
http://www.lloydpye.com/intervention.html

IMO, it makes for fascinating reading but is it 'scientific' enough to gather any support?

As far as I can tell, Lloyd Pye's theories are based upon the same dishonesty, misunderstanding of evolution and willful misrepresentation of evolutionary theory that is used to support Creationism and ID.

This particular version of Intervention Theory appears to be nothing more than Creationism or ID: except deities have been replaced with aliens.
 
To my way of thinking, the Bible says Joseph was Jesus' father, and Jesus claimed he was the son of God.

There again, isn't God supposed to have impregnated the Virgin?

Yay, and I say unto thee, be pregnant and bear my spawn...

Bit cheeky of Him. Did He even ask first?

There again, back to that magic man in the sky again.

What has this got to do with how we originated BTW?
 
coldelephant said:
There again, back to that magic man in the sky again.

What has this got to do with how we originated BTW?

We do seem to have wondered a bit off-track. I suppose that it's my own fault for questioning the assumption that a 'creator' must necessarily be a deity.

Naturally this is only relevant if we find evidence that supports the idea that terrestrial life was 'created'............which brings me back to the original subject of this thread. Has anyone managed to come up with any evidence that supports ID/Creationism? How about some evidence that calls into question evolution?
 
Back
Top