That's a dangerous statement to make because it leaves people with the erroneous idea that "proved" theories become scientific laws and that isn't really correct.

Many MANY people in here have stated that a scientific theory does not become a scientific law if it continues to be proven through evidence. A scientific law is an observation. A scientific theory is how that observation occurs and it's causes. A scientific theory can not became a law. I don't know where you heard it could but whoever told you that was wrong.

Galileo didn't go from 2. to 5. wen he determined the acceleration due to gravity. It's impossible to skip any of these steps, and it would be illogical to do so.

if you guys can sit there in front of your little computor screens, and nod your heads up and down in unison, agreeing that that it all happened basically by itself, when there are more combinations for the ingredients of life to go through for the creation of a simple form of life then there are electrons in the universe, well, I don't know what to say next!

if you guys can sit there in front of your little computor screens, and nod your heads up and down in unison, agreeing that that it all happened basically by itself, when there are more combinations for the ingredients of life to go through for the creation of a simple form of life then there are electrons in the universe, well, I don't know what to say next!

Yes it is. When the other gentlemen here say that they had "heard" of evolution, they mean only that they heardabout it, or saw a poster. (assuming that they are my age or older and live in the US).

Evolution is not introduced as science until College here.

Some scools may be different, but not in Michigan.

If you ask people around here whether or not they "believe" (silly, isn't it?) in evolution, an overwhelming majority of people that have never attended college will say "no".

Here in the states, Politicians have learned that the best way to keep evolution from being viewed as the theory

Our scool boards then vote that they will not allow evo. in the classroom without intelligent design as well.

Evolution.

Why do you suppose that the volumes of facts and data in support of evolution have been repressed in public schools. I know that religious leaders are opposed, but they aren't enough to persuade the boards to not teach the theory.

could only happen one way.

eg.
correct earth size.
correct sun size.
correct atmosphere.
correct moon.
correct spin
correct electromagnetic force.
correct rate of expansion of the universe, believe it or not
[If the universe expanded slower, I don't think it would, faster, and it would be over]
correct a billion other things, without one of which there would no life. you know, life!

its like somehow, of course, everything was there, now, try and stop life from forming!

what? IT WAS THERE! you know, there

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”

Bottom line is that both creationism and evolution are currently considered theories. Why not just teach both and satisfy both sectors.

Bottom line is that both creationism and evolution are currently considered theories. Why not just teach both and satisfy both sectors.

posted by: OMGWTF
Uh huh. But where'd the first spec of goo evolve from? Abiotic processes? Okay, but where'd that goo evolve from? [/QUOTE]

OMG are you kidding me? Google Dr Stanley Miller. Do some reading on pre biotic chemistry. Early earth...4.5 billion years ago. then a cooling period. atmosphere made up of oxygen, hydrogen, methane, amonia. lots of volcanic and lightning activity. So you have a billion years of lightning firing thru an atmosphere of those gases creating amino acids in the oceans. Once you have all that mixing it up together..amino acids, oxygen, hydrogen, water..your gonna have life. And without supernatural intervention. Dr Miller did an experiment to duplicate the early pre biotic conditions of earth, and was able to produce at least 20 different amino acids. Thats how you get life from nothing. Single celled organisms form fist...a million years later more complex organisms. Your problem I think is your too impatient to wait. You want the whole deal proved in front of your eyes in a matter of hours or less. And since you cant see it your going with the only remaining explanation...goddidit!