Quote Originally Posted by David88vert View Post
Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.


If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.


The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".


Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.
Very well put sir.