Sorry Muman, I would have responded earlier to this but didn't get a chance to.
the theory cannot account for the development of life from some simple beginning. It simply cannot account for the broad sweep of evolution.
This is a very good explanation of how one-celled living things came together to form multicellular organisms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=cell&part=A61Once life is in existence, natural selection will take over. There are some hurdles though, one of them is the formation of multicellular life (not that big of one), and the other is the formation of eucaryotic aka eukaryotic cells.
You can't really directly evolve from a single celled organism to a multicellular organism like most of the plants and animals are today. This required something kind of special, basically there were groups of cells that formed colonies together. Different cells in the groups would become specialized, forming different tissues. This would have happened more than one time. This was something that could evolve into a primitive plant or animal.
There's also a big difference between bacteria cells and the types of cells that make up plants and animals. Bacteria cells are called prokaryotes and plant and animal cells are called eukaryotes. Eukaryotes have a nucleus with a membrane and also mitochondria inside the cell. It's difficult if not impossible for eukaryotes (like plant and animal cells) to directly evolve from prokaryotes (bacteria cells). This also requires something special. Basically at least two different cells had to combine to make this happen. One lived inside the other one in sort of a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship. Eventually this was something that could evolve into the plant and animal cells we know today.
When prominent biologists claim that "evolution is a fact," they are stating a half-truth that means far less than what they would like the public to believe.
It's a fact in the same way that the earth goes around the sun is a fact, and in the same way that gravity holds us on the earth is a fact. It has the scientific evidence in its favor well enough to establish it as scientific fact.
The theory of evolution -- and it is just that, a theory -- states that the development of life is a purely natural process, driven by known mechanisms.
The idea that living things are made of cells is "just a theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theoryYes, it's just a theory, even though you can take an onion skin and look at the cells under the microscope directly.
Surely in this context,
scientific theories have to have a different meaning than what theory means to people in regular conversation. Think about it.
Here's a good explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory But this is simply not true. There is no evidence that life developed, or even could have developed, by a purely natural process.
There's lots of evidence that life diversified due to a natural process.
However, on both theoretical and experimental grounds, the broad sweep of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. On theoretical grounds, the probability is just too small for random mutations, even with the filtering of natural selections, to lead to a new species.
If you have the patience for lectures, I recommend you watch "Climbing Mount Improbable" on youtube. I don't like his attitude toward religion anymore than anyone else, but I haven't found a better explanation, and this video doesn't have anything anti-religious in it:
If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, watch 4:40 to 8:23. I think it answers your question very, very well.
On experimental grounds, there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. This may seem surprising at first, but a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists shows that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it.
There are different types of mutations. Some of them add information, some of them reduce it. There are duplications of genetic material that can happen during cell division. These can be subsequently changed through other mutations.
One of the examples where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
That's a great example of observed evolution in the real world!
It is suggested that although significant evolution cannot occur by random mutations, it could occur by non-random mutations. Non-random here means that the environment itself influences what mutations can occur. There is extensive evidence for evolution by non-random mutations -- evidence that spans life forms from bacteria through vertebrates.
The only thing close to this I have heard of was the idea that the rate of evolution can speed up if there's a greater environmental pressure.
Topic: comparing the bible creation to evolution timeline (Read 20417 times)