Evolution
 

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, and kids of all ages, let's discuss this often misunderstood subject. (I added a poll out of curiosity.)

Evolution is process whereby living things, as a species, undergo changes to suit their environments and ensure the survival of the species; over generations, a species will change through its offspring in order to better survive in an environment. However, often no drastic change is really required--many types of insects have developed very little over millions of years (evidence that their species is very successful), yet under scientific experiments, we can simulate harsh changes and observe the insect species adapt (cockroaches, for example, growing immune to poison).

Modern genetics showed us that the process is quite complex, involving changes in the frequency of alleles--some info, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele


So, for anyone who doesn't agree with it, please explain why you feel that evolution is in error.

For those who may not know very much about it, I'm sure your questions can be answered here.

Cheers...

Re: Evolution
 

Did you know that humans and apes are more genetically alike than a horse and a zebra.

Re: Evolution
 

If I am not mistaken, zebra's are not really horses at all? Maybe they are, I am not entirely sure.

The mouse and the elephant are closely related.

Anyway, I support a lot of what evolution has to say, more so than any other 'theories.' It makes sense. When you are faced with a challenge, you adapt to survive the challenge,

Re: Evolution
 

I dont agree with Darwins Theory of Evolution (That men came from apes or common ancestor in particular), although i do agree that eveolution exists..

I think that species evolve, but they dont evolve into NEW species, that is the part i disagree with the most

Re: Evolution
 

Evolution is real, it explains many things, the things it does not explain are simply because they are not attached.

Re: Evolution
 

Eventually you are going to evolve into a new species. Think about it. You are a huge air breathing fish mammal with legs. Over time though, you really don't need to use your legs anymore as you are able to catch food in the water just fine. Eventually, your legs disappear altogether and you become a whale. New species.

And I do think men evolved from apes. Apes that could walk upright. There was a species of monkey in the past that had formed bipedalism. Eventually your bones are going to evolve so you can run faster upright and function more properly upright. That is evolution right there from a monkey to a human.

Re: Evolution
 

well, i also dont believe the earth is more that 20,000 years old ...at max..but that is a different topic....

I see where you are coming from though, thinks do change to fit the environment, changes in habitat, etc...i just dont believe, mainly in the area of humans....sure a fresh water croc may move out into salt water over time....

but humans are different...way more complex, just the brain has billions of nerve connections, something that complex cannot be created from a lower being, or the knowledge of right and wrong, being able to distingish the two is amazing...animals go on a basic set of "instincts"....

Re: Evolution
 

explain dinosaurs?

Re: Evolution
 

Yes, they did exist, but i believe they existed with man....

personally, i believe they were wiped out, not entirley from a comet/meteor, but from the great flood, but that is a different topic...

Re: Evolution
 

I believe in Evolution, and I believe a greater being got the ball rolling.

Re: Evolution
 

Right or wrong is not a knowledge. It is a widely relative and cultural thing. The concept of right or wrong is different between cultures and nations, you just impose your vision of "right" upon others. Values, for example, are also relative to societies.

The Human brain might be complex, but many other species are extremely complex too, and superior to us in many ways while we beat them in others. Each species focused on a specific feature to ensure their survival, and because we were completely pointless physically, we had to use tools and brains to survive, while other species focused on other features.

Re: Evolution
 

:agreed

to sum up my feelings, God started it.....evolution does exist, but we didnt evolve from another species

Re: Evolution
 

Then why did God make you look so much like a monkey?

Re: Evolution
 

Well, chimpanzes and human share about 97% of the same DNA, on average*, and I'm not sure about horses and zebras--they are part of the same genus.

XC, evolution is a fact. You can study it, document it, test it. It's called "The Theory of Evolution" because it's a scientific premise. Like the Theory of Gravity, or the Theory of Relativity. Many people mistake this for it being "theoretical." It doesn't explain everything, of course, since it's still a young science. With animals which have very long life-spans, it is difficult to study.

*some say it's as high as 99%, and I've read others putting it at 95%

In his own image...

Re: Evolution
 

I know evolution is a fact. I agree with it.

It is also a fact that the earth is over 5 billion years old. You cannot prove the earth is 20,000 years old, however you can prove with technology that the earth is 5 billion years old.

Re: Evolution
 

by what? Carbon dating?? that has been proven inaccurate


and im not saying the earth cant be more than 20,000 years old, or even millions.....i could be wrong, but this is what i believe.....

Re: Evolution
 

X-C, you should recognize this post, as I just figured out who you are, I posted this a long time ago, still relevant;

Ok, I have a very difficult time understanding why people put their stock in evolutionary relationships. Before you can truely discuss the evolutionary relationships, it must first be explained, it it's MOST litteral terms, as people try to define evolution in more than one meaning. Evolution actually has severl different things attached to it, at least two different definitions, both of which must be seperated and stated as they are in order to make any sense what-so-ever (that is quite possibly the longest sentence ever, so I apologize for any damage I'm causing to your eyes). Allow me to explain what I'm talking about. (please do not skip reading this section even if you think you already know, it's important to any further discussion I make)

The basis of evolution is founded in Natural Selection, Darwin's theory. Darwin's threory was that within each species, there is a certain degree of genetic variation, causing diversity in that given population. This is through genetic mutation, variation in hereditary relationships, and obvious things like that. Now, this causes what is widely know as Micro-evolution, the changing of a species over time. This plays on the theory of divergance, that animals grow increasingly different over time, physiologically, as a direct result of the increasing differences in their genes. A species would there-by, diverge so much from it's other relatives that it would become a seperate ecological race, and eventually over time, an entirely new species. The natural selection theory is obvious: the creature which develops the characteristic that best suits it's environment is more likely to survive in order to get around to reproducing. A logical concept if you think about it. This is from Darwin's finches (after which the theory was developed). The finches in the Galopagos (spelling is most definately not my thing) developed varying styles of beaks, broad, long, narrow, etc. It's was discovered that each finch's beak matched the food that was most abundant in that area. A long, slinder beak allows a bird to more effectively eat insects abundant in one area, while it is not suitable for breaking nuts, which are abundant in another. Likewise, the powerful broad beak that is suited for breaking the nuts in that area, is unwealdy, and would not do well at catching instects, in addition to the fact that the broad beak requires more energy to wield, and they would have to eat MORE insects in any case, than a slender beaked bird, but the slender beaked bird can much more easily catch them. Within the ranges of both species of finches, their is a varying amount of beak sizes. In the slender beaks, some are longer, some are shorter, some are wider, some are narrower. Same with the broad beaked birds. As case in Natural Selection, the birds within that range, that have the narrower beaks (in the case of the slender beaked finches) and the broader beaks (in the case of the broad beaked finches) will more effectively gather food, therefore, they would survive to mate. That is Natural Selection; Micro-evolution. Micro-evolution, is not disputed by many Christian scientists, and is not the controversial issue, the problem comes when people try to use natural selection and magnify it to extraordinary proportions; the theory of Macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is the controversial form of evolution. This is a species drastically changing into different species (gatanotia-asralopithicus-humans, ambliosetous-basilisarus-whale, amino acid-protein-cell-person, stuff like that). Where as science can show the development of characteristics through the theories of natural selection, it has not, and, infact, cannot prove the formation of entirely new structures! I'll take one of the more widely known relationships of this as an example. An antient creature known as ambliosetus, is thought to be the whales ancestor, and the first step of mammals returning to the sea to become whales.

Ambliosetus was a semi-aquatic creature (anphibious mammal) who was similar in design to a crocodille, with features of an otter, and mammalian in design. Ambliosetus had four legs and was built generally like a croc, but it's tail was shorter, thinner, and was built similar to how you would see an otter's tail. It was a truely remarkable work of art, physiologically speaking of course. It is theorized to have swam like an otter, with the up and down motion of the body like an otter (or a whale) instead of the side to side motion of a croc. Now is where it gets tricky. Scientists theorize that the creature developed several features as it "evolved". Most notibly, as I already stated, the Ambliosetus had a narrow tail like an otter. Scientists state that the tail eventually became a powerful fluke (the { shape a whale has). This is NOT supported by natural selection at all. Within NO means is a fluke part of the genetic variations within a species, nor is any stage up to a fluke. They theorize based on trying to make logic of this MUST be this, cause that's just how it is. That in itself is rediculous. Let's head another step down the "evolutionary chain". Basilisaurus was another supposed "evolutionary step" to a whale. After Ambliosetus, this massive creature had a fluke, which just magically sprouted overnight. This creature, had massive, deadly teath, which it could use to tear through the flesh of any prehistoric prey. Also, this creature still had no blow-hole. A whale, both has a blow-hole, and it has brush-like "teath" which stream vast amounts of krill. NO amount of genetic variation causes something to magically have a tooth brush for it's tooth, nor does any amount of variation cause us to grow a hole in our back that we can breathe through. Natural Selection simply isn't an option here either. This shows how rediculous believing in macro-evolution can be, but just to be sure, lets analyze something a little closer to home, the human evolutionary path . . . .

The earliest human "ancestors" are said to be prehistoric monkeys (yes Cataphract, I mean MONKEYS, the little poop throwing thing with a tail) like Gatanotia. Over time, supposedly, these monkeys gradually became apes (the difference in case you don't know, is that monkeys are smaller, and have tails, dwelling in the trees, they use it for balace and additional gripping power, while apes do not have tails, and have strong arms as a compensation, and many do not live in trees, though some do). That in itself is rather out there isn't it? A little monkey dude just decided to trade in it's tail (which shouldn't happen in and of itself, it has no reason to give up it's tail, such a lose isn't genetically advantageous anyway) and gain powerful fore arms, and grow larger . . . never any expaination of why they did this, how it at all benefitted them, and why modern monkeys are still monkeys if it was really so advantageous to be an ape, but that's just the way it is. The first ape with "human-like" features was the Astalopithicus. This creature was basically an ape that could supposedly walk upright. No additional brain size, so it isn't becoming like us there, no special skeletal changes in the skull our anything, it's just standing up now for the fun of it. Eventually, this creature supposedly "magically" morphed into a creature known as crowmagnon . . . the modern man . . . . This happened at the bigining of the ice age . . . so where the fric did our fur go?! How would that be at all helpful to us to loose our fur during a friggin' ice age?! (how the crap is it advantageous at all?) So now, crowmagnon not only has to go find himself food, now he must go find some clothes so he doesn't freeze his prehistoric arse off . . . seems to be quite an inefficient play on nature's part . . . could it have screwed up?

Natural Selection, while plausable in a small scale, of a species changing over time, but it does not AT ALL explain the functions of growing new body structures, illogical changes that are apparantly harmful to the species, and just all out proposterous. Now I don't want anyone trying to use the fact that some humans have tails, that is a genetic mutation, not a window our past. As I already said, apes don't have tails anyway. But genetic mutations does remind me to tell you, genetic mutations isn't the cause of Macro-evolution either. As with any mutation (which are usually harmful and cancerous anyway) the mutation is simply a mistake while copying genes and is recessive. Even if the creature did live to mate, the mutation is "diluded" through time, and is usually erased completely even by the next generation. The only way for a mutation like that to carry on is if the matant's mate somehow had the same mutation, and then the next generation's mate had that mutation, so on and so on, which is rather stupid to try to proove something like that, as well as anyone trying to proove that way by insest, which is also stupid since creatures that closely related often preoduce defects, killing the offspring, and can cause infertility in the next generation anyway.

As you can see, I don't put any stock in Macro-evolution. If you'd like to proove me wrong, then come on in and try it out.

Steakboy
- Resident N00b at Large . . . . -

Re: Evolution
 

When you are talking about 500 million years and twenty thousand millions years, it is not that inaccurate.

Re: Evolution
 

Features with no uses partially disappear because they become under develloped and unecessary. For example, there are vestiges of tails on our backs, but it does not grow at all because we don't need it. The same thing applies to our digestive system, were some features disappeared because our diet changed. As for fur, well keep in mind the glaciers did not cover the surface of the globe, and that while it was colder, it was not freezing all year long. Clothes did not make fur necessary.

Re: Evolution
 

Survival of the fittest means that creatures more adapt to their enviroment can have more offspring. This does not state that all evolutionary changes must be usefull. Some changes cause no harm and can be weaved into the species easily. Even us 'perfect' humans have many properties that do not grant us any edge above our others. Like, why do men have nipples? Or why do we have tailbones? If we evolved from monkeys with tails, some monkeys could have been placed outside their 'natural enviroment'. Perhaps caused by an ice-age, where all the trees are gone. Standing upright would give you a better view of your surroundings and the ability to run faster. A tail would become redundant, since there is no need for climbing.

In marco evolution there are no big changes, but little changes over long periods of time. Very well, I cannot explain the blow-hole thing, but the alternative to macro-evolution is much, much more unlikely.

Re: Evolution
 

Yeah. Well, 4.57 billion, to be a technical dick :smokin:

Re: Evolution
 

No, but they cannot be detrimental either. The loss of hair in an ice age, etc. would be rather damaging to the organism as are many other changes that science has conjured up over the years

Re: Evolution
 

You still have fur...

Re: Evolution
 

we have a thin layer of hair, hardly enough to conserve heat by any manner. Take off your clothes and run around the tundra a while, you'll see what I'm talking about

Re: Evolution
 

why? the tundra is not our natural environment?

Re: Evolution
 

ice age . . . cold . . . snow . . . ice . . . are you following anything I'm saying . . . .

Re: Evolution
 

The ice during an ice age doesn't cover the entire planet. You know, originally, mankind descends from central Africa.

Re: Evolution
 

yeh, but they were in central Europe at the time, which was very cold. Archeological records my friends

Re: Evolution
 

Evolution is why we are here. The earth is billions of years old. The earth rotates around the sun. The earth is round. Gravity is why we don't float into the sky.

Re: Evolution
 

At the time of the ice age, or at the time they lost their fur?

Re: Evolution
 

both, it was the same time which is why it makes no sense, they lost their fur in the mid ice age which is about when they reached that far into Europe

Re: Evolution
 

Of course it makes sense--they began wearing furs to stay warm, so why on earth would they need hair?

Re: Evolution
 

This thin layer of hair was fur tens of thousands of years ago.

Yes.

The first humans with under-develloped fur, if you will, came from africa, were even under the glaciation temperatures were still relatively hot. Has they migrated, their fur did not reappear. They started to wear fur instead. It took these people less time to think about furs than to evolve, wich is a prossess done in many generations.

To give an example, human evolution will probably end because of medical science.

Re: Evolution
 

Thats practicly my theroy also, i dont think there would still be monkeys...Just me though.

Re: Evolution
 

This is a common question asked by people who know nothing or very little about evolutionary biology (or biology itself).

The answers is:

Evolution has no goal. Has no top, has no bottom, no upperclass, no lower or middle class; evolution is the process of change that life forms go through as a species struggles to survive, as a species, by adapting to the environment around it.

Humans are not "more developed" or higher than other life; we are a young species and have huge brains, that's all.

And yes, species can branch off and form new species; a small group becomes separated from the main group and has to adapt to changing circumstances, different from that of the main group; when it changes enough, it becomes a different subspecies. The more time and changes that go by, it can be defined as a new species.

Re: Evolution
 

Here is the end-all-and-be-all of why evolution is the dominant scientific theory for explaining things like the fossil record, biodiversity, microevolution, et cetera: because it works. Evolution is the only scientific theory that works in this case. We have a relatively large amount of proof to prove it, too.

Why microevolution IS macroevolution: microbes breed much faster. We're talking about a new generation every two hours, folks. Calling a prehistoric human generation 15 years, that makes our 3 million years of evolution from austropith-whatevers to modern humans equivalent to 45 years in microbe terms. Calling it 20 years gives you a figure of 34 years. So let's settle on 40. 40 years ago equals 1965. So, the timetable that has given us humanity from ape-like ancestors has been compressed into a middle-aged person's life. Think about what could have happened in that time. Microbes are also notably more receptive to mutagens, so our pollution may have in fact accelerated natural evolution.

I ramble. My point is, that is microevolution. It is also macroevolution. We have new species or microbes that have popped up in the last half-century, and you know what? We should not be surprised. These new species will die or live, depending on their compatibility with the world. Those that live will mutate like their forbears due to simple probability, and create new species. Over time theis process will keep rolling until the world ends. That is macroevolution.

About the whole "747 in a junkyard" myth: that is only true if the end goal is to randomly create a human. However, evolutionary theory does not treat humans as an end, but as a beginning. Humans can only be an end if they make themselves so. Evolution does not care about humans, or anything else. A species of semi-intelligent octopi that has lots of predators and few ways to defend itself, or a organless bacterium that survives in lukewarm water quite easily and is toxic to its predators. Who wins? The bacterium.

One argument I have seen in the past is the invocation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am going to prempt this argument by arguing that entropy is necessary for the evolutionary process to take place. Without a tendency for instability the biological systems would remain stagnant. This disorder creates evolution in creatures just as stress creates innovation in society. The hottest fire forges the strongest steel.

Right, that's my $4.82.

Re: Evolution
 

And it was worth every penny :D

Seriously though, excellent post--I was awaiting further arguments before bringing out the big guns, but you've pre-empted them.

Yes, Second Law of Thermodynamics--in addition--applies to closed systems. Biological systems are far from closed.

Re: Evolution
 

Thank you, Nord. That was what I was thinking no more than two weeks ago, and here is my chance to say something.

All Darwin and Co. did was take the evidence before them and extrapolate a theory from it, which was based on the evidence. If you don't like it because it contradicts your belief system, you can simply call it BS and go on your merry way, but it is still treated as fact (not truth, fact) because it is the scientific theory that best explains some facet of our world. If you can think of a better theory, go ahead. Galileo did so, as did Newton, and Einstein. Perhaps the future will prove them wrong, but for now, with what we have seen, they are correct. Darwin holds the same honor.

Re: Evolution
 

Yeah, me too. And I was getting sick of random ignorant comments here and there, which I couldn't get into because it wasn't the proper subject.

Hopefully, a few people here can learn a little bit (or a bit more) about evolution and not continue reiterating silly old misconceptions.

And myself, I haven't even really thought about the whole micro vs macro evolution deal.

Edit: Yes, that leads to another misconception, that evolution is a sort of belief--that evolutionists will defend it to the death.

Not at all. If a better theory comes along, I'm all ears.

Re: Evolution
 

i just cant believe that some god would just create the whole world with a snap of the fingers , so untill there is a better theory or the evolution theory gets trashed i will stick with it thats all.

oh and i dont believe in big bang either . I think that the universe has just been there and will be for ever. we tend to think about everything in terms of gensis and destruction because we are bound by them

Re: Evolution
 

so matter magically sprang out of nothingness? :confused:

Re: Evolution
 

Conservation of mass/energy, steakboy. The universe began as a quantum singularity of infinite energy. Matter and energy are interchangeable according to the equation E=MC^2. Energy was converted into matter, and presto change-o, a universe!

Re: Evolution
 

Why does matter have to spring from anywhere?

If the Big Bang happened as most people agree, then the matter was around for the massive explosion, in some form, to take place.

I think there has always been matter and will always be matter. Why not?

Re: Evolution
 

ok I can't say i am an expert but i personally believe that God created the earth, as in the trinity God, GoD, Jesus, and HS. he created the animals and humans, no evolution. The animals dispersed and populated the earth. the ADAPTED to their surroundings, no evolution. think we humans somthing so complex came from an organism, no not an orgasm *sigh*, anyway i am not here to convert you but try reading The Holy Bible, you might find some interesting stuff, things might be explained.... oh by the way if you do don't get a king james. NIV is the way to go. Also the carbon dating is a load of chicken crap, chicked because it is small and insignificant. it always pruduces wrong numbers and so fourth. The dinasours? well i think some survived the great flood, aboard Noahs... off topic but they survived into the... israelite time. only to probrably be killed and die off. And if we evovled from da monkies why are monkeys still around????? God? cant you people think? Someone HAD to create us. Think something so...so well anyway animals just cant sprout legs and walk away from the sea. Doesn't that seem impossible? Well I am tired it is 11:00 PM. I shall retire to bed.

Re: Evolution
 

HS?? Holy spirit? oh, okay.. But did he create the new "evolved" animals? They weren'r created as in poof! But rather were changed over time. Isn't adapatation and evolution two different things? Hmm, let's see:
Adaptation:

1. 1. The act or process of adapting.
   2. The state of being adapted.
2. 1. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
   2. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
3. Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
4. Physiology. The responsive adjustment of a sense organ, such as the eye, to varying conditions, such as light intensity.
5. Change in behavior of a person or group in response to new or modified surroundings.

Evolution:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2. 1. The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

Close, but not the exact same thing...

erm, what? i never said orgasm...but yeah, it could have formed from a little organism. Its worth a shot, but i'm not going to read a 600 page book or so where i barely understand any of it. Hmm, could be possible, but would a lowly ark be able to survive a meteorite hitting the Earth? i doubt it. In the evolution process, not all of the one species evolve into something else, the new "Evolved" species branches off but is still linked to its origianl form. I agree, except its 1 in the morning here. :p

Re: Evolution
 

Here's why the monkys are still here, bud: Monkeys lived in different environments. Over a few thousand years, one environment was more suitable to monkey-like monkeys, one environment was more suited to human-like monkeys. Eventually, there were both.

npconnor, if you're going to try to convert people, I suggest you read loads of philosophy. Plato, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, all through. I did, and it did wonders for my religion. I can be both intellectual and religious. That takes a lot of work.

Re: Evolution
 

i'll begin with this. How did the first heart evolve? it is impossible, did it just spring up? no animal can live with out it. Did it evolve half a heart then decide it needed the rest of the heart? By the time it evolved the heart it would have no use for it. and by heart i of course mean the bloody beating thing in your chest and not a 'soul.' Same goes with many other organs in our body, people fail to realize just how complex we are, it is insane how different we are from animals, or 'simple' single celled bacteria.

You look and one of these 'simple' single celled organism and u find out something. It is not that simple after all, very complex. It has it's own structure. And what, we came from a pre-biotic soup that just happened to exist. it created the exact number and combo of amino acids out of over a million possible combinations. My point is is that it would take far more than 4.6 billion years to even create a single-celled organism. and the chances of it even surviving are even more astounding.

Hence my stance that Evolution (macro) Is Impossible. There is no proof. There would have to be literally 1000s of transitional species in between each little change as Darwin said a number of times. We are talking Huge leaps between organism with not one transitional species found in between. There are far too many unanswered questions with macro-evolution.

I believe God always existed (no other logical way). And he created everything in 6 days (including time, or else the idea of god is flawed and impossible, he is constrained by nothing.) And without him, there would be nothing. "from everlasting to everlasting"

I agree completely, this past year i've learned so much philosophy and it literally changed the way i view almost everything. Mainly regarding legal issues (plato 'treat equals equally, unequals unequally.') But yeah it really let's you see all sides of the equation, instead of instant 'i hate G.W. Bush' or 'i love Bush and what he does' as an example. that was off-topic.

And one quicky, what is believed to hold the atom together? because an atom is filled with protons and neutrons in the middle. if like charges repel, then what is holding the protons (that are possitivly charged) in the middle. Probably off-topic.

Re: Evolution
 

Actually, different hearts have different uses. Frogs have three chambers, I think. Some insects have no hearts, or only large vessels that act like the accelerator wheels on Hot Wheels tracks. The heart evolved over time. We don't know exactly how because we don't have the evidence for it. However, that does not make the theory wrong. Evolution was not supposed to answer every question in the book, just answer the most questions as well as possible. Considering the number of animals there have been on the earth, there have been very few fossils. We'ver only found about 0.01% of Earth's prehistoric biodiversity. Of course we're going to miss stuff. But there is enough evidence to force a single scientific conclusion, that is, evolution.

I believe God exists, and He has always, and in truth, I personally believe in ID, in a way. I believe that God created the world. I don't know how, or why he did it like he did, but I believe he did. Ex: If God is eternal, what is 6 days, or 4.5 billion years? They are both nothing compared to eternity. But I can't PROVE that God created the world, cassius. As long as I can't, I have to accept evolution.

Ok, here's how the atom works: the nucleus is bound together by what's called the nuclear strong force This is the force that acts at small distances within an atom's nuclei and maintains the stability of this nuclei in spite of their tendency to fly apart because of the Coulomb repulsion due to similar charged particles. This force only acts at very short distances. At about 0.5×10^-15 m the attraction between nuclear particles due to the strong nuclear force begins to decline. At the distance smaller than about 10^-16 m the Coulomb force is more pronounces and particles of similar charge start to reject each other.

Re: Evolution
 

crassus actually single celled organisms are not very complex. Do you know how long 4.6 Billion years is? Don't try to act like you know how long it takes for life to be created because you don't.

Re: Evolution
 

Actually, Ekips, single-celled organisms are quite complex.