Knallbra diskusjon gutter...
Tror dere treffer med deres punkter begge to, og kanskje vi må medgi at begge har litt rett??
Vil få referere til et tidligere innlegg i en annen tråd mht evolusjon:
"Dagens bonus (siden jeg elsker temaet): EVOLUSJON
Flere forskere hevder at selv om det ikke finnes eksisterende (fysisk beviste) bevis på evolusjon, så kan dette forklares med "plutselige" mutasjoner.
Sitat:" However well this idea might account for the fossil record, it is still based upon a perspective which holds life's development to be random, by chance. Yet it can be demonstrated that evolution, however it may have occurred, is unlikely to have been a random process.
The instructions for the plant and animal forms are contained within the genetic code. This code is complex and the amount of variation which could be involved is immense. Could this code have evolved randomly? A simple look at the figures suggest that it could not have done. If, for example, a monkey sat at a typewriter striking a key every second, how long would it take, by chance, for this monkey to create randomly an English word twelve letters long? The answer is that, by chance, it wouldt take him almost 17 million years.
How long would it take for this same monkey to produce, randomly a meaningful sentence in English of 100 letters - a chain much less complex than the generic code? The answer is that the probability i so low, the odds against it exceed in number the sum total of all the atoms in the observable universe. Effectively, it is impossible for a meaningful sequence of 100 symbols to be produced by chance. We must conclude that it is similarly impossible for life's complex genetic code to have been produced by chance as the theory of evolution would require.
The astronomer Fred Hoyle, never one to suppress a pungent phrase, wrote that the chance of creation of the higher forms of life is similar tho the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."
Må si at jeg lo meg skakk av den siste der...
Men poenget er, som nevnt over, at evolusjonen er mistenktelig i sin definisjon når man ser statistisk på det. Og så godt som all forskning bygger på simuleringer, sannsynlighetsberegninger, matematiske beregninger, osv osv osv..."
Mao evolusjon er en teori. Gud er en tro.
Fakta??
Når vi har dem har vi kommet langt, men der er vi langt fra enda