No, I believe they are doing just that, proving it. That "new" algae came to be(exist) under the similar conditions described in the Theory of Evolution. So yes, I do believe it can, is, and will be proven and when it is 100% within a shadow of a doubt proven, Christians will continue to pull the wool over their eyes and shield their ears and thoughts and refuse to believe, NO MATTER WHAT, because the bible says so!

 

I think one of the most interesting and solid pieces of evidence for evolution is endogenous retroviruses. Endogenous retroviruses are those viruses who, throughout history, infected the germ line (sperm and eggs), thereby being inherited from generation to generation of many species.

Tons of species have them, and by studying the genome of species and finding the genetic codes of these viruses, scientists have been able to pinpoint evolutionary divergences, confirming some close relationships they expected (apes to humans, for example) and disproving the notion that other seemingly taxonomically proximal species were, in fact, hardly related at all.

Evolutionarily speaking, such a virus would have to confer an advantage upon the individual whom inherited its genes in order to guarantee that it would hang around in our genome. For example, perhaps at one point in human history (or, more likely, several) some percentage of individuals had inherited an endogenous retrovirus and, for whatever reason, this virus allowed only these individuals to survive some disease which was fatal to all those who did not inherit this viral genetic code (and thereby, the virus).

Sorry for the somewhat scientific speak, but I just recently began to learn about endogenous retroviruses, and they're cool stuff!

 

That's why the call it "Faith"....

 

pretty interesting stuff. I might have to read more about this stuff. I am thinking about getting some sort of science magazine subscription. I pick up the Scientific American and Popular Science magazines when I fly and they absolutely fascinate me.

Thanks for the interesting info.

 

Not again!

 

yes...... Again.

 

I am going to hijack my own thread.

Shane I like your avatar, any bigger pics or links to? I'd like to get a better look at your wheels.

 

heres 1

 

Never seen a black lip, usually the other way around. Looks real nice.

 

thx.

 

Evolutions is very plausible. Take a look at all the embyro from every mammals, at its early stages, the fetuses all look very much the SAME.

And the question about new creatures... Take a good look at breeds of Dogs. A lot of the DOGS you see today, never existed back in the 1800's..

 

That's because they were crossbred into what you see today. If we stopped all breading and let dogs interbreed as they see fit. The dog population would end up looking like the Australian Dingo. Or the wild dogs of Africa. The same thing with pigeons, left to their own, they will all eventually look like the birds you see in the wild and it doesn't take many generations to do it.

 

wow this guy is a tool. Yeah I opened my peanut butter and there was no new life, no ****, its peanut butter. And im pretty sure that evolution of life in peanut butter would take longer than the 2 minutes that movie was lol.

also he said that they have been doing billions of experiments of the course of 100 years. Even so, 100 years is nothing in the time span it takes for evolution to occur. lol good game mr. anti-evolution, you lose lol.

btw this video made my night lol

 

Meh. No one's ever going to figure out exactly how we got here, so why even care.

 

Ummmm...That proves nothing. There is intra-species variation that gives rise to all sorts of different looking animals still within the same genius and species. The same genes ( genotypes) get expressed differently ( called the phenotypes) or else we'd all look like clones of our parents. We look similar to a cross between them, but not exactly. That doesn't make us a seperate species from our parents.

The "new life" isn't new at all. It's just newly discovered.

Carbon dating uses a flawed, circular reasoning= the objects found in certain layers of earth are all the same age. Objects of the same age are so because of the layers they are found in. Stupid isn't it?
So how does a 1960's bicycle found at the same layer of a dinosaur fossil get dated differently? Scientists discount the exceptions to make their ideas get accepted as fact.

The ancient fossils of "pre-historic man" are shown as complete skeletons, but were actually conceptually constructed from simple peices (of a jawbone, tooth, etc.). They aren't discovered intact like the Mamoths from the La Brea tar pits.

It may not even be human. Read up on the methods used in this field and you'll be suprised.