So THAT'S how you spam a forum like this. Well done.

I saw a show a while back about the probabilities of us actually existing based on chance. Which is what it is if you consider that if electrons, neutrons, protons and stuff running a fraction faster or slower things just wouldn't line up the way they are.

THEN, consider the chances of actually being in existence on this planet based exclusively on evolution. You'd need an infinite number of parallel unversii(? lol) just to get the moon sitting in the right spot.

The flip side of that argument is that, well, it DID, and here we are. But all it would take is a MINOR chance in the force and we de-exist. Interesting stuff, but gives me a headache.

wobbles yes rebutting one system dosnt validate an other,..but the thing is the current one is wrong..[but fooling people into thinking its right..[is more wrong]

quote from the seed link>>To qualify as fully alive,a system needs three basic features...Life needs a container;..it needs a way to encode and replicate information;..and it needs a way to capture and use energy.

..each feature depends on the other two.Our DNA can only survive inside a cell membrane,and it depends on our metabolism to power its replication.But membranes depend on our DNA in turn to encode the proteins that can build them.

To make metabolism possible,the cell stores its energy and the genes to encode the necessary enzymes.Genes and membranes depend on metabolism to provide their raw ingredients.

In the past, scientists have joined together two parts of the triad at a time.And only now are they starting to join all three.For Bedau, to witness this last milestone will offer the opportunity for a close inspection of life’s process—one that may reveal more than we expect.

Does it benefit science to abandon these working definitions,these milestones of life?Is it even possible?Can scientists make any progress without them?Will their search toward a theory of life advance more quickly without them?

Cleland,for one,thinks so.By arguing that scientists abandon definitions of life,...she doesn’t mean that they should throw their hands in the air....“Some scientists view my arguments as leaving them with nothing to constrain their search,but I don’t think that’s true,”says Cleland.>>...i can only agree

one of the first steps will be to realise natural selection is a buzz word...[so full of generalised idiocy as to be scientificlly meaningless]

so much more;,..IT is so poluted with buzz-word non-answer it serves very litte by way of finding the real answer

the evoltion tree need pruning..[but its not a tree its a forrest]even some sci-en-trysts are seeing it,..the current theory of evolution is a deceptive lie..[the real truth must[can only]begin when everyone gets the lie,...not accept the current evolving rep-lie as true

Evolution, natural-selection, call it what you will, it works.
Humanity has been proving it for millenia, with our domesticated animals.
When we breed for characteristics or temperament, we are emulating Nature, and evolving our animals to our own ends, aren't we?
Works for me.
No-one to my knowledge has offered an alternate working hypothesis, a detectable, verifiable, logical theory to explain the world of Life we inhabit.
Apart from some mysterious "Greater Being", who handily is also unprovable, but must be taken on "Faith". On top of which, those who do refute evolution thus claim it's unacceptable for the very reasons the rest reject god, because they claim it must be taken on trust(faith)!
Goose and gander springs to mind.
There's far more evidence for Evolution than there is for a god!

Maximillion.

There are animals reserves throughout the globe that are millions of acres in size where the animals survive how they've survived naturally for millennia using the same 'evolutionary' - (in the literal, not theological sense) - survival of the fittest techniques. But those reserves have fences, with controls.

Same can't be said for us?.

[selective breeding like/to/like isnt natural-selection]...selective breeding isnt evolution..evolution claims fish evolved into humans...but cant prove..how this occured.

they postulate..a mudskipper'evolved'into you...apostulate some cow/like creature became a whale..[but its all theory]

they dont have any faulsifyable[scientificlly]valid proof,..are too clever to declare faulsifiables..[a theory that if proven untrue invalidates their theory]..[they say it will become clear next year..lol..[take the next course..[but then they box us into ever more specialised areas,...and the big picture of evolving genus never gets explained..[BECAUSE IT CANT BE]

YES<<we breed..evolving our animals to our own ends,aren't we?>>

breeding species is not breeding genus!..[dogs are of the wolf genus[cannus],yes we can breed canus to canus[but we cant breed felinus[cats]into canus[dogs]..thats the lie of evolution

<<No-one..alternate working hypothesis,a detectable,verifiable,logical theory.>>YET..you believe a lie,because NO ONE ever can

science PRETENDS an answer[but their answer is a lie..[it dosnt matter if you know how the web works,..because its here and works fine[we can claim it works like this or that..[but if we believe this and thus ignore that WHAT IF THEY LIED,..why do they lie,?..till you can see the lie,..you cant see why they want you to believe the lie

science sell's us on the omnipotance of science[but its a theory,..only pretending fact..[a white coat tells us[sells us]on whiter than white..[tells us a cure for cancer next year[lol]..its because science wants to be the god replacement

[science wants consumers,who accept global/warming when science says it is or global/cooling when science says it is..[but really its a lie upon lie..[sold by gullible to the guiless]SEE THAT SCIENCE must be taken on "Faith"...TOO

<<Goose and gander springs to mind.>>peas in a pod comes to mine

<<There's far more evidence for Evolution than there is for a god!>>
not once you look at the proofs[or know to test the proof]..you reject personal witness for a few fossil fragments..[you judge[on faith]...one fruit more believable than the next on the few fruits you have tested..[taste them all]..

your taking evolutions faulse-fruits on faith[its just a new religion]think of it that way[see dorkins thinks he is jesus]..their followers think they are god..same same..[ask saint darwin]

Our ancestral past can be traced in the same manner trackers use broken branches and footprints. DNA and mDNA are time machines. Cosmologists can tell the age, distance and composition of a star by reading its signature. Likewise, geneticists can read chromosomes and genes.

Our genes can be traced back not only to the common ancestor of humans and other (we “are” apes) apes, but to early mammals, reptiles and bacteria. In fact you and I still have a reptitilian brain structures beneath our mammalian structures. We are part lizards.

Behaviourally, we only became a clearly differentiated animal, after were left the hunter-gather life for agrarianism and husbandry. Here, Civilization is a response to the ecological changes subsequent the melting of the Ice Caps at the end of the last Ice Age.

Humans were the animals best placed to handle being pushed inland from the flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates delta. Our ancestors developed farms away from the flooded rivers. Several societies have developed myths around the archaic memory of the event. Genetic Adam existed, 30,000 years before the flooding, not a few Biblical generations.

If a religionist retorts to claim the flood event was divinely orchestrated, remember the Ice Caps were formed 20,000 years before Noah’s “sinful” peers. In which case, because time does not exist for God; God is using foreknowledge to diminish the gift of free will.
“Our DNA can only survive inside a cell membrane, and it depends on our metabolism to power its replication. But membranes depend on our DNA in turn to encode the proteins that can build them.” On Under God” – OUG

OUG, you have described the evolved mechanism only. The first statement is true for our extant DNA. The second statement is only true for extant DNA. In Discovery Science Channel demonstration scientists, simulating early Earth environments, created a cell membrane independent of DNA, which did corral amino acids. The proto cells had a different chemistry.