Peez

Then you must have even greater trouble imagining that God "started from scratch". That being said, I am not certain that it is meaningful to discuss the universe ‘starting' at all. I certainly do not know what that would mean.As noted, "de-evolve" is meaningless.By "evolutionists" I assume that you mean "biologists" (if not, please explain). No, biologists do not think that "life forms seem to be born with pre thought layouts" (if I understand you here). It is my impression that creationists hold that view.This is true in some life forms, but not in others.Natural selection has favoured patterns of growth and development that maximized reproductive success.I am not sure that I understand that sentence, but you seem to be asking about something other than evolution. Note that evolution does not deal with the origin of life, nor the mechanisms that control growth and development.That is not a crime, I know next to nothing about a lot of topics. However, you should be clear about something: it is a scientific fact that living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors, and the theory of evolution is at least as well established as the theory of gravity.How would you know that this claim is true?Genetic mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.Perhaps it would help if you defined "complex" in this context. You might also find it useful to ask how something as complex as a "creator" could exist "from scratch".It is also possible that the universe has always existed. It is also possible that the universe was created last Thursday. It is also possible that the universe is an illusion. The question is not ‘is it possible' or even ‘is it likely', but rather ‘what does the evidence show'. The evidence clearly shows that living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors, and the chief mechanisms of evolution are genetic mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.You seem to be confused about evolution here. Evolution does not address the origin of life. Organisms with hearts evolved from organisms without hearts. This occurred through genetic mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.The term "evolutionist" is often used by creationists to try to imply that acceptance of evolution is akin to acceptance of creationism, that it is some sort of religious point of view. This is, of course, false. The opposite of creationism is science. That being said, it is no more incorrect to call people who accept evolution "evolutionists" than it is to call people who accept heliocentrism and gravity as "heliocentrists" or "gravitists".

Peez

PS: If a god created the universe, and this planet in particular, and created the earliest simple life forms here, that would change nothing whatsoever about evolution.

spamandham

The development of a given person/animal/etc. does not involve evolution. It's just plain ol' biology.

As to how it built up, the simple answer is, positive feedback in a nonlinear environment.

Professor Mayhem

Do you call people who accept the validity of the theory of gravity "gravitationalists?"

Theophage

I apologize for coming across so antagonistic, glooper, it was just one of those days.

Let's start with one common way that that changes can be made in living things: duplication and mutation. Sometimes a mutation happens which copies a whole gene. Now the organism has two copies of it, when it only had one before. Sometimes having two copies will affect the organism badly, and natural selection will weed that particular line out. Sometimes it will affect the organism in a positive way, and natural selection will make that particular mutation more plentiful in the population.

But most of the time, the mutation (like most mutations) simply won't have much of an effect at all; at least not rught away. But now that the organism has two copies of that particular gene, one of those copies can mutate further in its descendants, without getting rid of the function from the original.

This is a bonus, because even if a particular mutation in that gene when there was only one copy would have been useful, it may have been less useful if the organism only has this new function, but not the old function. Now with two copies of the gene, the resulting organism gets the old function and the new function too. That is an increase in complexity, and required nothing but mutation and natural selection to accomplish.

If you want to think about it in more anthropocentric terms (but be careful with this) mutation is the "designer" tinkering around with ideas, and natural selection is the "designer" putting the ideas through tests. Successful testing means a successful product, and more tinkering can ensue. Unsuccessful tests are scrapped.

I don't expect you to deny the possibility 100% but you expressed the difficulty in believing in a non-intelligently created universe. My point was that when you compare the two (universe created/developed through natural laws we know exist and universe created/developed through magic from a magic man not known to exist) that while neither seem intuitively obvious, at least we have evidence of natural laws; we don't have evidence of magic.

A magic God poofing the universe into existence according to His wishes seems more like ignorance disguised as an explanation, rather than an explanation itself, as it does into give us any more insight into how the universe actually works. (which is what real explanations do)

Thank you for explaining what you meant, I didn't get that from what you wrote.

It is really only used by creationists, and it is used as a sort of linguistic trick to attempt to portray acceptance of evolution as equivalent to belief in creation. A person who studies evolution professionally is a biologist or specifically an evolutionary biologist. A person who simply accepts the evidence of evolution is no more an "evolutionist" than a person who accepts Special and General Relativity is a "relativist" or a person who accepts gravity is a "gravitationalist".

You don't need a special term for someone who agrees with established science. You only need terms for those who don't.

Malintent

PS: Mods.. how is this message "too short" to post. This sentence is added to bypass that idiocy.

EDIT: Oh I see.. It thinks it's one big quote.

spamandham

Of course! How else can we "Intelligent Movement" enthusiasts distinguish those evil gravitationalists from ourselves!? Magic invisible "gravity forces", pfft. The only reason bodies move toward eachother is obviously because angels are pushing them.

Gravity is just a theory. We should teach the controversy.

Mike Elphick

You believe in gravity angels pushing, eh? I believe bodies move towards each other because of attraction - angels are pulling them! Dear me!

spamandham

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, aside from "gravity". If the angels were pulling, planets would be torn apart. Planets remain intact because the angels are pushing. Some bodies are made of water. How could they pull on that! Hah!

Your concept is foolish and heretical. Mine is based on science, because several Ph.D.s in biology and theology agree with me.

nanaimo

glooper23, I would also recommend ordering the free HHMI evolution DVDs. They provide a very good overview of the biology behind evolution.

Sho 'Nuff

Here, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhntEOGslbs