Election Day

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only the continuation of said life.

[diehardtwinsfan]

You misunderstand evolution. While it's lucky that a gene mutates into something useful, it's not luck that makes that gene get passed on (hence the similarity in cellular biology of all life). This is also why we see similar genetic features in disparate populations--because the trial-error of genomes sometimes reach the same useful mutations, and it's the useful ones that survive millions of years out.

 

What's ironic, diehard, is that your financial philosophy seems akin to social darwinism--it's just the biological process that bothers you, not the social and economic one?

 

There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

 

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

 

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.

 

Evolution, like Darwinism, does not attempt to explain how life arises from non-life. That's like blaming tectonic geology for not properly explaining the red shift of the universe. It's illogical.

[glunn]

There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

 

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.

 

Evolution, like Darwinism, does not attempt to explain how life arises from non-life. That's like blaming tectonic geology for not properly explaining the red shift of the universe. It's illogical.

 

You make a good point, Brock. But I can't tell whether you believe that it is logical to accept religious explanations instead of waiting for science to come up with explanations that are supported by science. Is that your point?

 

In response to diehardtwinsfan, are you suggesting that scientists cannot explain how mutations happen?

[Brock Beauchamp]

You make a good point, Brock. But I can't tell whether you believe that it is logical to accept religious explanations instead of waiting for science to come up with explanations that are supported by science. Is that your point?

 

Oh, I'm not arrogant enough to make that call. I don't believe in a personal god but I certainly won't look down on those who choose to accept religion as an answer for the universe's origins. There are just too many question marks surrounding the entire situation to definitively call it one way or the other, in my opinion.

 

But evolution? Nah, that one is pretty much in the bag. We have mountains of evidence to support it and to a rational mind, there's really no questioning that evolution exists. The nitty-gritty details are certainly up for debate but the existence of evolution itself has largely been settled by the scientific community.

[drjim]

I have a question on Evolution and I hope I can write it well enough that it makes sense. I have studied it a little and have no doubt that it is a process that is clearly happening in our world today. Much more obvious on the micro level, but the diversity of fauna in various locales would seem to speak to me on a macro level as well.

 

My question is how accurate and useful is the theory of evolution in extrapolating back to the origin of specific species? That is, we observe several species now, we have observed several fossils that would suggest a progression, but how confidently can we make that link scientifically? In short, can evolution truly back up the claim that life started in a primordial soup and evolved into humans? I know that is premise scientists would use, but can that actually be backed up with fact?

 

I understand how, depending on geography and available resources, that life will evolve in different situations and that over millions of generations there will be lots of diversity within fauna, but it still seems like a far jump to then move that from a few inorganic compounds that life sprung up.

 

My discomfort with evolution is not about what processes it explains going forward (those appear obvious) but the confidence it has with going backwards and the conclusions that are reached.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I have a question on Evolution and I hope I can write it well enough that it makes sense. I have studied it a little and have no doubt that it is a process that is clearly happening in our world today. Much more obvious on the micro level, but the diversity of fauna in various locales would seem to speak to me on a macro level as well.

 

My question is how accurate and useful is the theory of evolution in extrapolating back to the origin of specific species? That is, we observe several species now, we have observed several fossils that would suggest a progression, but how confidently can we make that link scientifically? In short, can evolution truly back up the claim that life started in a primordial soup and evolved into humans? I know that is premise scientists would use, but can that actually be backed up with fact?

 

I understand how, depending on geography and available resources, that life will evolve in different situations and that over millions of generations there will be lots of diversity within fauna, but it still seems like a far jump to then move that from a few inorganic compounds that life sprung up.

 

My discomfort with evolution is not about what processes it explains going forward (those appear obvious) but the confidence it has with going backwards and the conclusions that are reached.

 

Honestly, there isn't a lot of data. The problem with hard data and evolution is two-fold:

 

1. Evolution happens quickly in the grand scheme of things. Large periods of inactivity bookending short periods of rapid change.

2. The fossil record is woefully incomplete and will always be that way.

 

But that doesn't mean that evolution isn't correct. The data we do have all points at the evidence of macro evolution, we just can't draw a linear line through most species because we simply don't have a physical record to track each genetic change along a billion year line. And we never will, if only because of the rarity of natural fossil preservation the enormous amount of time and species we're talking about here.

[PseudoSABR]

You misunderstand evolution. While it's lucky that a gene mutates into something useful, it's not luck that makes that gene get passed on (hence the similarity in cellular biology of all life). This is also why we see similar genetic features in disparate populations--because the trial-error of genomes sometimes reach the same useful mutations, and it's the useful ones that survive millions of years out.

 

What's ironic, diehard, is that your financial philosophy seems akin to social darwinism--it's just the biological process that bothers you, not the social and economic one?

 

There's quite a bit wrong with what you said. Yes, my financial philosphy is very much akin to social Darwinism (though I think there's a moral component to letting people keep what they earn and spend it how they'd like). That said, I have no issue with the Biological process of Darwinism. The problem I have is that his does not reasonably explain the theory of evolution. The tenant behind Darwinism is that nature essentially breeds out the bad genes. I have no issue with this, as Darwinism does an excellent job of explaining how nature can form selection from existing genetic material. What Darwinism doesn't adequately expain is how new genetic material gets added to the pool. It also does a lousy job explaining how life can arise from non-life.

 

Your example contains the same flaw. A gene mutation has to be passed on before it can be selected (where your example assumes the opposite), which is the first major problem with Darwinism/evolution. Reproductive cells are formed at birth, and they contain a separate copy of your genetic profile. If I aquire a mutation later in life, it does absolutly nothing for me as I cannot pass it on. I have to aquire that mutation in my reproductive cells, which is done before that gene can be selected. Likewise, mutations tend to be changes to existing genetic materials, not the addition of new genetic material which is another problem. Your example assumes that I already have the mutation and can pass it on. Like Darwinism, however, it fails to show how exactly I aquired it.

As you point out, to pass on mutations so that they become part of a species, those mutations must happen in gamete cells. The sex cells are a great place for DNA to mess up (or do unintended good). Mutated gamete cells that harm a genome never develop into a zygote (a fertilized cell), or that zygote never develops into an adult, etc.. Meaningful mutations need to happen pre-fertilization, fertilization or during the zygote's differentiation. When the mutations happen to be good, the beast lives!

 

Evolution is NOT breeding. There is no active invisible hand guiding cells to know what mutations are advantageous.

 

New genetic material is added in the form of viruses for one (cool ****), but it's also added through the process of mutation. A change of one nucleotide will result in a whole different protein.

 

In my opinion, a lot of your problems is a misunderstanding of cellular biology. How DNA gets copied, how RNA is transcribed and than made into amino acids, how sex cells differ from other cells.

[PseudoSABR]

I have a question on Evolution and I hope I can write it well enough that it makes sense. I have studied it a little and have no doubt that it is a process that is clearly happening in our world today. Much more obvious on the micro level, but the diversity of fauna in various locales would seem to speak to me on a macro level as well.

 

My question is how accurate and useful is the theory of evolution in extrapolating back to the origin of specific species? That is, we observe several species now, we have observed several fossils that would suggest a progression, but how confidently can we make that link scientifically? In short, can evolution truly back up the claim that life started in a primordial soup and evolved into humans? I know that is premise scientists would use, but can that actually be backed up with fact?

 

I understand how, depending on geography and available resources, that life will evolve in different situations and that over millions of generations there will be lots of diversity within fauna, but it still seems like a far jump to then move that from a few inorganic compounds that life sprung up.

 

My discomfort with evolution is not about what processes it explains going forward (those appear obvious) but the confidence it has with going backwards and the conclusions that are reached.

I had a long response to this, but I lost it somehow ugh.

 

The short of it:

1) Life really isn't that diverse. We share basic cellular biology with all life on Earth, that makes up a huge part of our genome. That cell process is totally complex and as a result we share a majority of the same genome. I had a good Lego metaphor here, but I'm not going to recreate it. Oh well.

2) I'm not sure that evolution attempts to explain how amino acids surfaced from primordial soup, or how primordial soup arose at all. It hardly matters whether we use evolution, gods snapping fingers, or a dissolving alien as an explanation...

3) How accurate can history be about anything that predates records? Your problem seems more with humans capacity to know the past, than with evolution. In fact your questions are more philosophical than scientific imo.

4) The lack of an equally evidential alternative.

[adjacent]

Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.

That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

[glunn]

Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.

That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

 

You obviously paid attention in biology class. Good post!

[stringer bell]

This is the most interesting thread I've seen here in a long time. How did I miss it? I guess I wasn't paying much attention to this site around the election.

[Squirrel]

I personally like how's it's evolved into science chat. (Okay, yes, bad pun intended.)

[glunn]

I personally like how's it's evolved into science chat. (Okay, yes, bad pun intended.)

 

Me too! Good pun.

[adjacent]

Actually, I think I can put some light into how mutations occur. The enzymes that do the DNA copying and editing are nearly perfect but not exactly perfect. There is a certain degree of miscopying (I don't remember the exact number but it is close to 1/10000000 DNA base pairs copied. Now, if you think that there are billions of base pairs in the DNA of any living organism (of course, there will be a variation in the amount of DNA from organism to organism, but a prototypical one) then you have thousands of spontaneous mutation per generation. Besides that, you have to add the mutations that are produced by environmental impact (UV light from the sun, chemicals, radioactivity, virus), and the amount increases. That happens in the somatic (in the body cells) as well as in germ line cells (in our case, ovules and sperm). Now, many mutations don't do anything or do little, many are harmful (if they are harmful enough that kill the new formed embryo right away and nobody knows that they even happened), and a few give an advantage to the new formed individual.

That is my attempt to summarize evolution at the molecular level. I hope this is helpful, especially to diehard.

 

You obviously paid attention in biology class. Good post!

Thanks, I make a living out of it.

[biggentleben]

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

 

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

 

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

[glunn]

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

 

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

 

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

 

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

[adjacent]

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

 

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

 

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

 

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.

Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.

How did we get from baseball to here?

[Brock Beauchamp]

How did we get from baseball to here?

 

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

[TheLeviathan]

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

 

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

[PseudoSABR]

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

 

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

I think we need to look into length redistribution.

[glunn]

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

 

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

I think we need to look into length redistribution.

 

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

[TheLeviathan]

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

 

Forced migration. Thank goodness for liberal immigration policy here at TD.

[PseudoSABR]

I blame it on the old BYTO folks. They'd manage to take a conversation about Sidney Ponson and three pages later, have turned it into a conversation about penis length and its effect on socio-economic status.

 

Pfft....I see you're still in denial.

I think we need to look into length redistribution.

 

BYTO sounds like an interesting place. I sometimes wonder why the site was abandoned.

We had a congeniality problem (I know hard to figure).

[Squirrel]

We had a congeniality problem (I know hard to figure).

 

Speak for yourself ... some of us can get along with any animal.

[biggentleben]

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

 

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

 

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

 

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.

Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.

How did we get from baseball to here?

 

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

[glunn]

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

 

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

 

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

 

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.

Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.

How did we get from baseball to here?

 

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

 

The extremists on both sides are a pain in the ass.

 

There are obvious compromises that cannot be reached, and the costs of not being able to compromise seem almost incalculable. This fiscal cliff impasse has me very pissed off, because I think that we need to raise taxes on people who can afford it AND raise the Social Security retirement age. Also, the amount of waste remains staggering, and one would hope that both sides would be willing to cut waste. We don't need 10 aircraft carriers and we don't need 20+ programs that address the same issue. I am praying that Obama and Boehner can come to an adult solution, because we may see a worldwide economic depression if they cannot.

[PseudoSABR]

I have always wondered how creation and evolution cannot co-exist. I get blasted by hardliners from each side, but to take it to the very basic level, we can't take evolution all the way back to the formation of life, but we can absolutely see (and fairly strongly prove) evolution from that point. So how can it not be co-existent?

 

No reason. I don't believe in creationism but there's no reason it can't exist alongside evolution because evolution doesn't even try to explain the formation of life, just what happens to it afterward.

 

Unless you're a crazy person and believe the earth to be 6,000 years old, like my brother does. He's an idiot. I can't believe we share genetic code.

 

I agree with both of you that they can co-exist. But I would note that the main evidence for creationism is the Old Testament, and no one seems to know exactly who came up with the concept.

The problem in creationism arise from the literal interpretation of the Bible, that insists in seven days. for the Creation. Once you remove that, and take 7 days as seven (and seven in the Biblical sense, as many) as seven periods, there is plenty of room for evolution to fin into the Biblical story. That is why Catholicism, that does not interpret the Bible literally, has no major problems with evolution. But the Churches that take the Bible literally (certain Evangelical Churches, for example) they do.

Regarding on how Biochemistry started, there are certain explanations. Under the primitive earth conditions, it is possible to synthesize urea and a few aminoacids from inorganic forms of nitrogen. Once you have nitrogen in organic molecules (like aminoacids, and urea), provided there is some water, it can go from there. Mind that we are talking here of periods of hundred of millions of years.

How did we get from baseball to here?

 

The thing is that a very vocal minority of those who believe in creation actually believe in a literal 7 days. Many of those who believe in creation do not believe in an Earth that is only aged ~10,000 years. It's akin to politics (to bring it back to the original topic of the thread), where you see extremists on the liberal and conservative sides that make a heck of a lot of noise, but the large majority of the country sits between those extremes, not in them. I certainly don't believe every liberal wants to take away my hunting rifle, and I don't believe every conservative wants to have 3,408 automatic weapons per household (to pick one particular issue), but that's the word we hear because those are the loudest talkers.

How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

[biggentleben]

How small is the bible-as-literal minority in your view? I think you're making a false equivalency between religious extremism and liberal extremism. We can't equate the rejection of science with some hippies taking away your guns. Both are extreme, but beyond that the equivalency falls away.

 

Just based on numbers, those claiming Christian denominations whose creeds declare the Bible as the "inspired Word of God" outnumbers those whose creeds declare the Bible as "unaltered (or some other form of direct/unchanged/etc.) Word of God" by nearly 3-1 in this country, and it's drastically more if you go worldwide. However, just like with guns, the loud talkers can persuade those who don't believe the Bible as literal to assume people are promoting evolution in ways that they simply are not doing. There are many in my area of South Dakota (essentially pheasant hunting mecca) who are easily persuaded that liberals are out to end hunting because some extreme talker said they are, and the possibility of such would so drastically impact their income that it is a huge issue.

 

There are many out there who believe Christ was born December 25th as well and that he stayed out in a barn outside of town after being rejected for a room at a Best Western-esque hotel. None of that is true, but because their translation of the Bible says it, they don't believe anything else is even possible.