Is fusion an occasional oddity, or a fundamental aspect of evolution?
94120
Molecular fusion occurs all the time in places where the pressure is great enough, such as the core of the sun.\nI do not know what you refer to evolution for.
49268
I think more than any other thing--more than all other things combined, perhaps--there is a single, most important fundamental that must be understood: The Law of Mass Action.  The barrier to understanding evolution stems from the word "random."  We hear "random," and the instinct is to say, "Bull pucky."  But randomness, applied to the law of mass action, becomes every driving force in the universe, and the origin of all order.\n\nThis is a ubiquitous law in nature.  The hardest part of understanding something like evolution is trying to wrap your mind around the NUMBERS.  Those huge, infinitely-large number that are used to discuss propability are truly mind-boggling.  Once you realize that there are other examples of driving forces overcoming immense odds, your whole perspective on the probability of evolution changes.\n\nTake biochemistry.  This is some stuff that's completely undisputed.  A protein starts as a chain--or several chains--of amino acids, all strung together.  Miraculously, this protein folds into the specific conformation necessary to perform its function by the simple process of RANDONLY banging around.  That's it!  It just bangs this way and that, folds left and right, over and under, driven by nothing more than the RANDOM bumping and shifting caused by thermal energy bumping tiny articles against eachother.\n\nBUT!!!  Once it gets to a thermodynamically-stable conformation, it basically stays put.  It takes a million random bumps left and right, up and down, for each of the two joints connecting every individual amino acid on the thread, but once it goes the right way, it's mission is accomplished.  And all of this happens in the blink of an eye!  We have no concept of how incredibly quickly these minor bumps and bangs occur until the target reaches its mark.\n\nOr take diffusion.  This is an extrodinarily powerful driving force, and the law that governs it is so simple that it sounds absurd!  Here it goes:  It is more probable that something will go from where it is to where it isn't, than it is for something to go from where it isn't to where it is.  Done!  That's it.  I've just told you in a tiny nutshell what chemical engineers spend two years studying with differntial equations, labs, and computer models.  That's thermostatistics summed up.  And yet because I understood that very basic fact, I was able to understand the complex functions of the nerve cell far better than 99% of my molecular biology classmates.\n\nBear with me a bit longer: when a neuron fires, ions rush in and out of the cell in ways that depolarize and repolarize the electrical charge of the membrane.  It's really complicated-sounding stuff.  But what it really boils down to is that potassium ions (K) are concentrated in one place (mostly inside the cell), and sodium ions (Na) are concentrated somewhere else (mostly outside the cell).  All of these ions are banging around, this way and that.  Some go left, and some go right, but the membrane staps them from going through.  The special channels open up.  Na ions, being mostly outside the cell, will be far more likely to go inside the cell--where they aren't--than they are to come out of the cell--where they already are.  THat's all it is--you're more likely to go from where you already are to where you aren't than vice-versa.  It's so simple it stupid.  Yet the movement of any GIVEN ION is COMPLETELY RANDOM--and yet this action happens so quickly and so consistently and so reliably that this become the driving mechanism of all biological activity.  This random ion movement, taken applied to a massive system where thermal bumping happens millions of times per second for biliions of billions of ions happens in a reliable and concerted way every time you blink.  Every pixel you see on your screen right now is the product where trillions of random molecular collisions happened, but a handful of signific
941577
Hi Naveen,\nThat question is interesting, and requires some basic knowledge of evolutionary genetics to answer.\nI shall try  to make this simple:\n\nThe basic unit of life according to the latest views, is the gene. This is bcoz Gene or the genetic material, whether it be RNA or DNA or any other non carbon material for that matter,is the one that posess the most funbamental quality of life- that is to "make a replica of itself and thereby immortalise its own kind" . \nEarlier, the ability to respire, the ability to grow in size, the ability to store and handle or transform energy and the ability to interact with the environment were all considered as basic and essential qualities of life. Now the view has changed and what i mentioned earlier holds true.\n        The genetic material as i told you has only one "aim"and that is procreation! All the interactions we see among living organisms around us is a result of the Genetic Material(gene) trying to create a copy of it successfully and make it survive.  "The cell is a way of the gene to make another gene" as Richard Dawkins told once. And when the cell becomes useless on its own to help genes procreate, the gene finds ways to make cells co-operate. Thats how multicellular organisms evolved. \n\nThis evolution was very very gradual, i need not stress upon that part. In this view of the living world, Animals, or for that matter Humans are the pinnacle of the gene's experiment for cooperation! Not only does each cell in an animal body work in close harmony with its neighbours, the organism(animal or human) as a whole works and lives in total harmony with others of the same group.\n         The mechanism of this cooperation is seen in pack-hunting strategies of many social animals like jackal, hyenas, wolves, lions, or the colony of ants , termites ,bees or wasps, or the farmlands of humans or in a modern factory..! This genetic cooperation has evolved innumerable mechanisms to identify common goals, common genetic makeup, and common ideology. This is why in a country, people of the same religion/ political ideology unite for common purposes.This is why,people of the same state unite in the name of language; people of same district unite in the name of region; people of same family unite in the name of blood relation ;brothers or sisters unite in the name of common genes, and finally an individual himself or herself becomes selfish when it comes to his/ her bodily demands...! \n         How does the one gene identify the presence of another of its own kind in another individual? This is called  "green beard effect"..! The concept is simple: A gene has two functions in the body: the first is its true function- to synthesize some protein that the body needs. The second function is that the gene produces some visible character in the body of the individual so that another individual can identify this character and extend its cooperation. A gene can thus make a person's mind more inclined to accept religion as a way of brotherhood/cooperation \n (like we see in some terrorist and racist groups) or it can simply tell the individual to cooperate for food. \n       The lowest level of this sort of cooperation is seen in symbiotic and parasitic relationships in animal or plant or even microscopic world of unicellular organisms. Bacteria live in our gut and help us digest cellulose from veg-food, we provide them a congenial environment to survive and reproduce. This is symbiosis. Parasites usually harm the host and eventually destroy them.Eg: fungi. \nTherefore all life forms on earth have likings for some or the other kind of organism. In social animals, the liking is towards individuals of the same species. In other groups, it may be towards a parasite or a symbiont. Some plants in the amazon provide "food" for ants that colonize among their roots, and in turn the ants provide protection to these plants from external animals. Som
72303
The short answer is no. \n\nIn science, it is important that results be repeatable. This is especially true when dealing with some phenomenon like cold fusion which appears to violate all the principles that we understand. \n\nPons and Fleishman and others tried to reproduce the observations, and were unable to do so reliably. A recent review by the Department of Energy of 15 years of research and efforts in the field reached the conclusion that this phenomenon does not exist, or at least cannot be verified.
346312
Before answering the question definitively, I think it may important to be aware of a few important details.  When we speak of "evolution" we are generally referring to the notion of species evolving by means of natural selection.  Many evolutionary biologists argue over the details, but all agree that natural selection is part of the evolutionary mechanism.  And so, there are actualy more than one "theory of evolution" when it comes to the details.  \n\nLet's assume for arguments sake that your question therefore could be slightly rephrased into: is evolution by means of natural selection truly happening?  The answer, I think, is a clear yes.  You may have heard some say that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.  That is actually not the case.  what is controversially discussed are, as I pointed out above, the details of the evolutionary mechanisms.\n\nNow, assuming that evolution by natural selection is real, and therefore, that not only we as human beings evolved, and that we furthermore are still evolving, does that mean that therefore religious believes are impossible?  Again, I think the answer is clear.  And this time it is no.  science and religion are absolutely reconcilable.  But as always the devil is in the details...  When some scientists say that science is the only way to the truth and therefore evolution has done away with God, the problem is that they are making a metaphysical, that is anon-scientific, philosophical statement: The statement cannot be tested by a scientific experiment.  Consequently, if the statement were true, it would prove itself false, since it is not scientific.  It is, what we call in philosophy, the liar's paradox (If I told you I am a San Franciscan, and all San franciscans are liars, am I telling the truth?).  On the other hand, when a biblical literalist tells you that the Bible has told us how the world was created in six 24 hour days (and one Sunday of rest...), the problem lies in reading the biblical text literally.  The Bible is full of what in theology we call obscure text passages...  There are contradictions, there repetitions, etc.  For example, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, how come he dies at the end of the fifth book and writes about it?  I could list more examples, but I think you get the point.\n\nSo, we can conclude that indeed a materialistic interpretation of the world (i.e., science is the only way to the truth) and a biblical literalism (i.e., the biblical text is to be read literal by the mere literal meaning of its words) would present two irreconcilable positions.  But as we have seen, both positions are problematic.\n\nIf we allow for science and religion to communicate with one another, they can actually inform each other and in there dialogue provide one interpretation of the human experience of reality.  Accordingly, religion would thus attempt to interpret the world in light of Scripture, but also its tradition.  Science on the other hand tries to attempt the same using its own very particular methodologies.  The concepts from both disciplines are then brought to a dialogue with one another, and from that dialogue one new understanding can emerge.  And with this new understanding we engage yet once again in a new cycle of interpretation.  As such, even religion science, and definitely our overall understanding of our human experience of reality grows continuously, or if you like, evolves.\n\nI hope that helps.
1023236
Well, I'm a Christian biologist, and I know many others who are.  I accept that evolution occured, but I do think it was necessary for God to direct it.  There are too many irreducibly complex systems at the cellular level, and too many astronomically unlikely coincidences that would have had to take place, if natural selection were completely responsible for the phenomenon.  Even a time span of billions of years is just not enough to account for it, statistically speaking.  That's my professional opinion, and I'm far from the only one who thinks so.
1024565
Complexity? Other than extinctions, most species still exist as they have. We have observe no mutations of single celled creatures, no transition phases in the fossil record, or anything else that would support evolutionary theory.\n  The evolutionary course of the horse for instance is still found in the tapir of South America. I could go on , and on.\n  Did you know the tooth they based Peking man on was actually from an extinct pig?!? However school books have not been revised. Evolutionist are still presenting this as "proof".
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.
291260
Adaptation? Evolution?
105065
There are several.  One is the fact that plants and animals can be categorized.  If the had evolved, there would be no breaking point between various species.  There would be people with various ape-like characteristics.  The truth is that reproduction is limited to animals within groups.  A horse and donkey can make a mule (which cannot reproduce), but a dog and cat have different genetics which prevent reproduction between them.\nThere is also the problem of galaxies which all still act in clusters (gravitational attraction).  Calculating the escape speed based upon rate at which they are moving apart and masses of galaxies involved, the upper limit of 1 millions years for their existance is reached.  Evolutionists attempt to bypass this by stating that most matter in galaxies is invisible...the mass is only 10% of that needed to maintain the integrety of these systems.\nThe volume of meteoric dust on the moon was far less than NASA expected, prompting the first men on the moon to say, "I can see the soles of my shoes".
615396
creation or evolution?
323990
I can see how it could happen. There are artificial intelligence programs that do get smarter over time. But as for physical evolution... maybe in the future.
954196
As far as my knowledge goes, the evolutional theory states that all existence occured due to coincidence. A marvelous 'coincidence' if you ask me.  I would like to believe that a higher power made this coincidence happen...
449308
Depends how detailed you go, they have paired atoms where you do one thing to one and it happens to the other, if things were the same down to this level maybe they'd be joined in the same way. Just a thought.
632
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
886021
Evolution and the means to survive.
1048996
Hey Bud, have you ever taken a class in evolution?\n\n"You're logic is flawed. There is plenty of evidence to show small adaptations within a species. These small variations enable animals to adapt to their environments.\n\nBut to go from that to changes from one species to another is quite a blind leap of faith and poor science as well. " Poor science according to who?\n\nHow many small variations does it take to turn one species into another?  A few small genetic variations make slight changes in organisms.... a few more make more changes... a few more make even more changes, and eventually enough of these little changes of added up so that the 2 groups of organisms are no longer able to interbreed. Thus, a new species - evolution at work.\n\nPoor science is when people who have not studied evolution try to disprove it. You come up with some pretty wacky ideas. Evolution is not something that animals do on purpose to improve. There is no plan, purpose, or goal to evolution. An animal that adapts to his environment (after he is already born) like your example is NOT evolution. Evolution affects populations, not individuals, and it does not 'occur' after an organism is born. Evolution only occurs when the gene frequency in the population is changed, through natural selection, random mutation, drift, etc.