It's in areas like these where I part ways with the Theory of Evolution. While evolution is a fact, the proponents of "our ancestors were amoebas" make what I consider an tremendously unwarranted leap.
I've been saying for years that my problem with the grand theory of evolution is not based on religion, but science.
TXnMA, you're a physical chemist -- what do you think about evolution? My personal experience has been that biologists (but not biochemists) are more likely to believe the theory of evolution as currently taught, but that chemists often say, "wait a minute, things aren't quite that simple."
But since biology cannot be separated from the chemistry that forms it if the chemistry doesn't work neither will the biology. Nothing can crawl out the slime if the chemistry is impossible.
In following some the links to bird flu it appears that the flu virus is particularly subject to mutation and change by gene swapping so that's just normal for them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike, at the expense of repeating myself:
here, I said,
"DallasMike, If you will read my
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2172630/posts?page=393#393
I believe you will find that we share similar viewpoints (I'm a Christian -- and a physical chemist)."
In the interest of understanding me and my beliefs, I believe it would be well worth your while to read/re-read the entire post. And, at that same URL, I answered your question:
"Although I have the acadmic [sic] requirements for BS in biology, I am no particular fan of Darwin. I simply accept his work -- and that built upon it by his successors -- as our best (but still flawed) explanation to date of how life here on Earth reached its present state. I am not on a mission to "prove" anything. The fact that I see that progression as following the Creator's plan does not color my investigations -- I view myself as being - like all good scientists -- on a continual journey of discovery."
Fair enough?