re: #1227 bullskin

Well, I doubt you could find an evidence of the botanic family which lead to the specie provided. I just saw this case in the Natural Science Museum as a curious mishap in the Evolution Theory, which being a theory is not a dogma. Darwin didn’t explain how the Prokaryote cell evolves to the Eukaryote cell, how the nucleus sets itself, detaches from the cytoplasm among other differences. This theory do not explain how the process of organization of complex cells brings itself the result of living beings with self conscience. If this was a dogma, we wouldn’t be seeking life in other worlds right know.

Once again, just because we DON’T know some things doesn’t mean that there aren’t many things that we DO know. For instance, it is rationally undeniable that evolution, defined as the change in species population over time, happens, as amply and abundantly attested by the paleontological record. It is also beyond rational denial that the mechanism by means of which these changes transpire is random genetic mutation acted upon by nonrandom environmental selection, and that the physical substrate in which this occurs is the DNA molecule. The veiled reference you make to the evolution of complexity being opposed by the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, while the terrestrial biosphere is an open system, receiving energy from both the Sun and the Earth’ hot core. 3 1/2 billion years is plenty of time for the accretion of a cascde of mutations to result in the plethora of terrestrial species we observe today. And evolutionary theory began with Darwin, but didn’t end with him; much ha been done with it in the ensuing 150 years, and ALL of the empirical evidence supports evolution, while NONE of it contradicts evolution.

ID/Creationim, on the other hand, has NO supporting empirical evidence, and doesn’t explain a thing:

The artifactual retroviral DNA evidence for evolutionary divergence from common ancestors is incontrovertible:

newyorker.com

And evolutionary mutation has been observed in ther laboratory, and can be repeated at will:

myxo.css.msu.edu

As far as procaryotes evolving from eukaryotes is concerned, evolution has an explanation for that, too:

evolution.berkeley.edu

infoplease.com

You might wanna bone up on the different arguments made by creationists that have been discredited and debunked:

talkorigins.org

Self-conscious awareness, btw, is a case where the quotient of the number of neurons in the brain, multiplied by the number of their synaptic and axonal connections, breached the Godelian threshhold, allowing for recursive self-reference. It is a result of the evolutionry growth of the hominid brain, spurred by the selection pressures of the necessity for fine-grained hand-eye co-ordination in order to manufacture and manipulate tools (a capacity that was applied via a metamutation to the mouth-ear nexus, permitting the production and parsing of phonemic speech), and the necessity of the grasping of the intentions of conspecifics in social hominid communities.