In the human genome, there are 4 possible combinations of amino acids called nucleotides and about 3.2 billion nucleotides. It has been determined by the human genome project, that a genetic mutation of one billionth of a genome is fatal if this occur within a generation.  What this would mean is that 3 mutations in a generation is fatal thus ending any possibility of passing on this change to the offspring.

     There are those that like to point out that chimps and humans are so very similar in genetic structure that it proves a common background.  Well, it is those differences that make up the world of difference. The differences translate to about 48 million variations in the nucleotides between us and chimps. That would mean that there have been 48 million random events have occurred since we split off from the old evolutionary tree. Given that 3 mutations in a given generation are fatal we are limited to a max of 2 mutations per generation. Now these mutations must at least be neutral to the offspring and definatly must not be a negative change. A negative change at best delays and at worst kills.  This is of course along with the offspring must survive and pass on these changes to its offspring. So, at best hope, we are looking at 24 million generations in order to completely bring those changes around. Of course, most (if not all) random mutations are fatal.  Anyone ever heard of sickle cell anemia? The change on one amino acid out of the 287 in red blood causes it not to function properly. It is true that sickle cell is not always fatal however its definatly not something you’d like to pass on. So, as you can see, these changes have to be very specific.

     Evolution is also not concerned with the end product, as has been explained to me several times. Its only “concern” is with the survivability of the species. With that in mind, there would be no reason to evolve upward, it would at best, simply evolve a bacteria into a better bacteria. As an example, if a motorcycle will transport one from one town to the next as efficiently as a luxury town car, evolution will not evolve a town car, even though the town car is a better way to go. Humans travel through life with more luxuries then other species do.  This concept would show more support for creation then evolution.  Some species that are considered lower on the evolutionary tree, such as insects, worms and bacteria carry out life, reproduction, survival and growth as efficiently or more so then humans do.  Especially the survival part as there’s a species of flea, definatly not high on the evolutionary chain, which survives year round in Antarctica.  Gets frozen solid for a good part of the year, thaws out, finds something to feed on and goes about its business.  

      If evolutionary theory were true, then there should be a gradual accumulation of minor differences that precede the major differences we see in animal today. Roughly 540 million years ago (according to theory) there was an event called the Cambrian explosion. In this event most major animal phyla (the most general biological category of animals) suddenly appeared as if out of nowhere. One of the explanations is that pre-Cambrian animal lacked hard body parts to fossilize; however the fossil evidence shows soft body fossils as well as the sudden appearance of new body types and not just the acquisition of hard body parts. 

     The statement that evolution isn’t concerned with how the first cell appeared on earth. It would seem to me that if you could prove that non-living chemicals could some how generate life; it would go a long way toward proving the theory of evolution. This is probably the reason that the theory of comets or life came from else where has sprang up. There are a few problems with this theory as I see it. The biggest one is it had to get here. Space being what it is, really big, requires that this life first had to somehow get into space and then survive a journey of a minimum 10’s of thousands of years (although millions of years would be more likely)  in the cold, vacuum of space. Then had to survive re-entry into our atmosphere and make a home here. That doesn’t answer any questions of how life began, it just moves it off of our planet to another point. Even if it was supposedly organic molecules that crashed on planet earth, there is still the problem of how did they get on that meteor or comet to begin with. The remnants of a star going nova might put the raw materials of life, namely the heavier elements required, but once again these elements must somehow come togather. Of course there is one other problem with that theory, namely being if it couldn’t happen here then why would we expect it to happen else where.

     A living organism must be capable of successfully reproducing, also ingesting, assimilating, and processing food and also must have a system to transport waste products.  A stable supply of food must be available in order to manufacture the various complex elements and produce the chemical reactions necessary to obtain the energy needed to insure the organism's survival.  Let’s say the first cell used sunlight as a food source. This gives it a stable supply of food. The ability to reproduce, to ingest, assimilate, process the sunlight into a usable energy source in order to drive the chemical reactions to ensure survival and the ability to successfully reproduce have to be in place, at the same time and working correctly in order to survive. If the cell has to evolve them one at a time over a period of many years, then the cell is not going to survive in order to reproduce.

     About the design of the human eye, most invertebrates possess a “verted” type of eye in which the photo receptors face the eye lens and are in front of the nerves and vertebrates possess the “inverted” type in which photo-receptors face the back of the eye lens and nerves are in front of the photo receptors.  One reason for the design of the human eye is that it allows the rods and cones to have better access with the cells that provide nutrients to the retina and provide a layer to help absorb excess light. Another reason for the design is that it allows for a more rapid regeneration of the cone photo pigments. This effect is mostly noticed when perceiving a bright flash and the temporary blindness that follows.  Squid and octopi have a more complex “verted” type of eye however they also live in a darker world and it also appears that the visual acuity isn’t as finely tuned; the eye picks up motion well but is unable to make out those finer details. The “inverted” type of design would seem to provide a much sharper image then does the “verted” type. If our eye were designed differently, would a sunny day be far too bright and would we suffer from a sensory overload. So, is the eye designed badly or is it a less obvious but far more functional design?  It appears that the eye was designed for the environment in which we live. Then again there is simply no data that would prove that our eye would work any better with a different design.

     That is my take on the whole situation. You can go to talk.origins website to get all of your questions answered however I’d suggest that you explore both sides of the argument and talk.origins is more devoted to evolution. From their website it states: The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity.” You may read that and make your own determination of which slant you are most likely to find contained within. Now, before someone jumps in and makes the statement that creation or intelligent design sites are going to be slanted toward which ever theory they are promoting, yes that is probably true but if you’re looking at both sides of the issue, as Mr. Ken Hughes once stated "Truth is like a coin, you must see both sides to know it’s not counterfeit."

	Web useless-knowledge.com