Not sure what you mean, but let me just say that their are gaps in our knowledge of exactly how organisms evolved, just as their are gaps in the fossil records, but that doesn't disprove our current theory of evolution. I work very much on the molecular scale so we (the scientific community) may know a lot more about the particular area relating to how multi-celled, sexually reproducing organisms developed.

The steps that I do know is that smaller bacteria became 'engulfed' into other bacteria to eventually form organelles (they have their own seperate DNA) giving rise to eukaryotic cells. If you look at funghi, they form multi-cellular structures, and contrary to popular opinion, genetically have more in relation to animals than plants.

Anyway, natural selection would actually still be putting pressures on all these single celled and multi-celled organisms prior to the advent of sexual reproduction. Just because they're reproducing asexually, doesn't mean they're not subject to the environmental selection pressures that sexually reproducing organisms are.

yeah, i agree. i meant to say the natural selection due to mutation of an organism's offspring wouldn't have occured yet.

so being 'born' with the beginnings of an eye or a leg probably would not have been occuring since sexual reproduction wouldn't have been possible at the times that those organs that gave a survival advantage were in fact still being developed or 'evolved'. the first to successfully evelove enough to gain the advantage would be the dominant organism

thus the argument "any first component of any of these things [body parts, like a primative eye for example] is useless and would not cause natural selection to take over" can not be used against evolution

you might ask how could this hypothetical, "still evolving" organism be able to survive if it still hasn't got the body parts that give it the survival advantage yet, it only has useless primative versions of them. well think about it this way, how come most creatures on earth today have eyes that can be considered very similar to each other (lenses photosesitive cells)? they most likely have a similar ancestry, that being the organism that was able to evolve eyes faster than the other organisms, thus surviving while the others did not, later branching out into more specialized organisms based the the changing surroundings at the time

Actually it was true, there was quite the controversy over it because the review lacked "credibility" also you do realise that it was not an independant organization that did the review, the U.N hand picked the scientists to be on the panel so what kind of outcome do you think was going to happen,lol. The public is starting to wake up and not buy everything that the media or the elite spoon feed them.

Secondly, evolution, though widely believed to be fact is still a theory because it is not 100% proven, though that was not what my argument, my argument was that scientific data can be manipulated, as the elite fund most of the scientific research. So it's rather ridiculous for a bunch of people in the forum to call people who believe in god, creationism,ect brainwashed, or believing in fairytales, when"a good majority of them"  blindly follow literally anything
they are fed through the upper echelon of the scientific community.

Well unfortunately it certainly is partially ignorance. Though it's more that religions don't want to consider the situation that the original religious "founders" didn't have information to everything. So there was a lot of speculation. In this thought though wouldn't it also make sense then that if using religious belief the most common and oldest belief would be the most accurate. This makes the entire creationist issue a dichotomy.

The current creationism theory is of course from The Bible.Though oddly enough much of that is from the Old Testament and that had lot's of sources from Sumerian. The Sumerians however did not believe in the the Bibles form of creationism. So what happened. Yep some one who came after for some reason changed the belief(i'm not saying it was arbitrary. There could be valid reasons). This is a change in written text. Why the change. Well that's the part that bugs me about Creationists. It's not their belief is the bother, but the selective use of information and denial historical and literally change of print without the known reason.

The oldest and for the longest period of history the standing Creationism belief. Was not the Biblical God. It is the "Serpent Sky Lords" who created humanity. Short of two areas of the planet earth where a more powerful dominant religion appeared. The regular belief is that some serpentine race created or controlled humans. From Asia, Africa, South America, some North American Natives have some form of serpent. Dragons, serpent people whatever. Most of them also have a theme of sky. Either they fly like Dragons or descended from the sky. Let alone the snake/serpent seems to perpetuate in all belief in some important meaning.

So if this is the case why are some beliefs being selective. Keep in mind this isn't about Religion vs Science. Science is actually pretty darn ignorant too.

Early in what we consider modern science. The Universe was governed by what we consider Newtonian Physics. Eventually a new Theory came about. Relativity and more importantly Field Theory. Now Newtonian Physists created a shit storm of whining. Even going to so far as trying to hammer out the golden chalice of The Universe by trying to merge Newtonian Physics with Field Theory. Well it didn't happen. Science went through a Paradigm Shift from the common belief that Newtonian explained it all to now Field Theory explaining it all. hey yeah 1 Science for their rather Scientific open mindedness towards Science.... no wait they didn't.

Now things are changing. Currently we have Qautum Theory/Mechanics proving to be more accurate than Field Theory. Guess what. The Scientists are throwing a shit storm and trying to create the holy chalice of the universe by merging Field and Qauntum Theory, but like it's last attempt. It's not merging so well.

Theres also more than just physics. There have been tools and clothing found that are 250,000 years old in dating process. Main stream archeology dismisses it. Why? simple because it doesn't fit in with the current model of human civilization growth. Maybe it's a miss carbon dating, maybe it's real. But the results when some form of evidence that points out that human culture could be older than we know results in no investigation and an immediate black listing of the archeologist. Wouldn't it be important to at least investigate further if Science was all about facts?

So can we really give credit to science. When Science itself is selective? if anything I think we can hammer science is being more ignorant than any other group since they are the group that is supposed to search more for the facts of the universe. Where as now mainstream science is more concerned with status quo and reputation than science.

So yeah. Creationist really need to open there minds and possibilities. Especially the scientists.

UN hand picked the scientists. Yes you are right. And if you look at their credentionals, you'll see they were picked for their outstanding contributions to thei field...

And OT, its funny that you introduce "rather ridiculous for a bunch of people in the forum to call people who believe in creationism.. brainwashed", well that's because they are. If you believe in God, it's fine. But if you believe in creationism, and reject evolution then you are an idiot, no question.

^I really think you should tone that down. Let's confront the ideas and the actions, not the people.

Not really. The first paragraph is a statement. The second paragraph is a statement. If you reject logic and ignore evidence to believe in creationism then you really aren't very smart... I have no qualms about people believeing in allah/god etc etc, but when they believe in easily demonstrablly incorrect ideas like creationism, and may try and convert others, then its just silly.

I don't mind people having faith, whatever works for them is fine by me. I do mind movements and sects that openly oppose progress and development. Creationism is one such branch of faith imo, if Creationists ruled the world, it'd be another Dark Age descended upon us where science and technology would be regarded as evil and large chunks of it possibly outlawed or labeled as Satan's work.

I respect differences in people but I do not respect people who toss centuries of knowledge and progress and hard work out the window for the sake of piggy back rides on dinosaurs being taught as actual history in elementary school.

@.jayderyu

attacking new theories is vital to science