Flores:
You continue to preach your own ignorance. Here's some more information for you, which might help. I really urge you to read at least one book on evolution before you continue to try to argue about it. You'll look far less silly if you take that simple step.
Consider this, how do you get all your traits? From your parents, who gets them from their grandparents, ect, ect.....This is all nice, but consider the gene pool for a second.
A pool full of traits. One gene for how tall you will be, one for what color eyes you'll have, one for you hair, ect. You didn't evolve Bell, you merely borrowed from the existing pool of Gene. Nothing new created here, only mixing up of a diverse background that resulted in YOU.
That's wrong. New genes are being created all the time. They arise in the crossing over process when new chromosomes are created from the gametes. They arise by the many processes of mutation.
First, you need to define your first template. This template should involve the human's basic physical characteristics as defined by the gene pool. We will call this the human morphology.
I challenge you to define a single human morphology. How much variation will you allow from your human "template"? At some point you will simply have to draw an arbitrary line between what you call "human" and "non-human" - a line which has meaning only to you.
Second, you need to define your influencing factors template, those being what we eat, who we procreate with, our environment, biological, chemical, ect..
How do these things influence the "template"? Surely, in your model, they only cause individuals to vary within the template.
Overlay both templates inorder to futher describe the existing human condition or "state" or "operation". For example, our lungs is such and such size, because our circulatory system need an X amount of air flow based on the current oxygen levels in the atmosphere.
The evolutionary explanation for the size of a human being's lungs is that creatures of human size born with lungs which are too small or too large would be at a survival disadvantage. Hence, they would have less success in reproduction. Therefore, only lungs within a certain range of sizes are found in viable human beings.
Next, we have to assume a hypothesis. I would like to use the term Optimum stable condition to guage the direction of evolution.
My hypothesis will go as follows: An existing system will always move toward stability. A system is stable if it is operating at it's full potential. Thus, the major issue in understanding humans condition and departure is to detemine how well their current condition (template 1) matches with their operational potential (the overlayed templates).
You idea of "full potential" is a pre-established one, probably tied up to your religion. Nature has no concept of "full potential". In nature, an organism is simple less or better adapted to its environment. What is good in one environment might well be bad in a different one, or if the environment changes.
Do humans as they exist now operate to their "full potential"? We have fairly bad vision (compared to even a low-cost human-designed camera). We aren't very good at surviving extremes of temperature. We're not particularly athletic, compared to some other animals. We're not great swimmers. We aren't very strong. We're not as smart as we could be.
It seems to me our "current condition" is not well-matched to any ideal "template". If we're made in God's image, then God can't be very impressive.
Based on the above, humans will undergo change if their "potential to change" is large, meaning if they are deviated from their stable form. Your potential to change becomes the gradient that establishes how much and how fast will you change.
If I lose my leg in an accident, I will have deviated from my "stable form", whose "template" presumably requires two legs. Therefore, by your argument, my "potential to change" is large, and I should regrow my leg. The more of my leg which I have lost, the quicker it should regrow.
Am I getting your argument right?
Evolution rests on the following assumptions:
1- life is based on trial and error.
2- Life is not intelligent.
3- Nature necessitates it; Nature makes it."
This is a very bad characterisation of the assumptions of evolution, though not surprising from somebody who is basically guessing and working from a characateur. Numbers 2 and 3 are so ill-defined as to be worthless, and in number 1 the nature of the trial and error is unspecified.
Here is a more accurate list of the five major elements of the theory of evolution:
1. Species change over time.
2. All living organisms share common ancestors (i.e. the theory of branching evolution).
3. Evolution is a gradual and continuous process (i.e. there are no sudden jumps or discontinuities).
4. A single species can split into two or more distinct species (origin of diversity).
5. Natural selection is the most significant driving force in evolution.
There are millions of cells in a human body and a single cell contains about one million proteins. The possibility of a protein occurring by chance is infinitesimally small.
Proteins don't occur by chance, so this is irrelevant. Proteins evolve. Evolution is not just chance. If you think it is, you're missing at least half of the picture.
Without One who has the power of choice to prefer its existence and the absolute power to create, it who has an absolute, all-comprehensive knowledge to pre-arrange its relations with other proteins, with the cell and all parts of the body and place it just where it must be, the existence of a single protein is not possible.
This is incorrect.
How could you miss the miracle signature of creation in the tiniest of creatures.
Because it isn't there?
The human body is a miracle of symmetry, as well as of asymmetry. Scientists know how an embryo develops in the womb to form this symmetry and asymmetry, but they are completely ignorant of how the particles, that reach the embryo through the mother and function as building blocks in the formation of the body, can distinguish between right and left??? how they are able to determine the place of each organ?? how each goes and inserts itself in the exact place of a certain organ?? and how they understand the extremely complicated relations among cells and organs and their requirements??
If you'd bothered to read up on this, you would know about the various gene sequences which govern exactly the things you mention here, along with some of the epigentic and developmental factors involved. Perhaps you have heard about stem cells in the popular media. These are cells which can develop into many different kinds of specialised cells, depending on where they are located in the body. How do they know where they are? In simple terms, by means of chemical messages passed around in the development process, and guided by particular genes.
It's time that Atheists decide which position do they rather support:
Either each particle possesses almost infinite knowledge, will and power or One who has such knowledge, power and will creates and administers each particle???
This is a false dichotomy. Rejecting infinite knowledge and will of particles does not mean that one is forced into accepting an infinitely knowledgable and powerful Creator.
