posted on May, 28 2004 @ 12:29 PM
I shouldn't, I shouldn't, I shouldn't post here, but WTH.
I was a practicing microbiologist for many years. The theory of evolution as it is presently stated rests on a few points.
i) Natural changes occur in the DNA of animals, which cause a change in the amino acid sequence of the encoded protein.
ii) Changes in protein sequnce can cause changes in the larger organisation of the organism.
iii) Some changes in the larger organisation of the organism cause it to be more "well-adapted" (this is a very vague term which means that the
organism essentially produces more viable children, thus there are more "copies" of the organism in the biosphere).
iv) The word "species" is used as follows: If an animal type cannot produce viable children (children which can in turn produce children of their
own) with another animal type, they are of different "species."
Historical evolutionism adds one more point.
v) All animal species (including human beings) presently existing are derived from the actions of the processes above on a single or very few common
Simple. Now, how about these points? Point i), I have seen with my own eyes (which is why I explained earlier that I was a practicing
I have seen point ii) with my own eyes.
I have even seen point iii) with my own eyes.
I haven't seen iv) with my own eyes, because it deals with larger organisms only, not microbes (as microbes do not (generally) reproduce sexually).
But it is simple to see a priori why point iv) is true (and please forgive my crudity in this explanation): let's say that genetic changes in
an organism cause that organism to have a penis which curves in a clockwise corkscrew (it can happen!). That organism can now only practically have
children with a female with the appropriate type of vagina. Here we see selection at work: if there is such a female, the two organisms can have
children, and it is possible that those children will inherit the corkscrew trait... in which case, they will form their own group of interbreeding
organisms separate from the original stock. In sufficient time, other natural changes in the species will cause them to be more and more different,
until the time at which they appear to be "completely different animals." If you accept the first three points, the implications of the fourth are
Now, what about point v)? Well, we can't see v) directly with our own eyes. However, several things stack in its favour. First, in order to reject
v), we must assume that what happened in history is vastly different from what we see happening today. Second, strata indicate that certain species
which currently exist did not in the past. Third, strata include some transitional animal forms. Forth, similarities in structure between quite
different animal species indicate similar origins. As for the mechanics of mutation and selection, I don't know what they are. It is possible that
you are right, Mirthful Me, and that the Deity (I am a Christian, by the way) interfered in the past. This seems insufficiently subtle for Him in my
opinion, however. I think it is most likely that God made the rules of the universe to encourage intelligent life, then did not "interfere,"
because it was not necessary. Actually, my belief is even deeper than this, but I don't want to get into it further.
I will not make any further replies to this thread, period. I simply wanted to state clearly my views and experiences as a biologist, and will not
reply to any further remarks here.