Kleptin

I've also heard that there may be a link between stem cells in the body and cancer, what do you think of the theory that cancer is the result of a stem cell that has mutated due to outside forces?

In response to that "armpit" question, I recall reading a theory somewhere that bacteria living in the armpit hairs of early humans fed on sweat and released a waste that acted as either a pheramone or a chemical marker for territory...Perhaps those bacteria are no longer with us due to human migration?

There's something that I would like clarified... I know that there have been attempts to recreate cell-like...things...(They aren;t actually living right?) And that they all exhibit some traits that mimic life processes. I just wanted to know if anyone has any theories on how those non-living things (as we categorize them) crossed the line to living things. I mean, there has to be a cutoff point somewhere right? And if not one, at least a distinct set of traits that show that something is alive?

I can see where you're going with that point...I think... If you think "christian" for a second, Cytoplasm and RNA are still too complicated. The fact that anything physically exists is enough for an IDer to say "God did it!" On that note, it doesn't really matter how simple something has to be because if something exists in ANY form, it still serves some purpose, remember the mousetrap argument?

woah... that changes a lot. But heres a stumper, if there was only 1 known case of a fertile mule, how did they find out it was fertile?

It's hard for me to imagine how technical that field of work is when it is just about as restricted as the birth of a comic book character...

I understand Ok, here's another question. Evolution has to occur by mutation, mutation has to occur in conjunction with errors in gene copying. Would the first incidence of mutation be a single genetic protein (the first life form?) screwing up while copying itself?

As in the case of mules, which are sterile.

What the...cloning... Human immortality would mean the destruction of the race, unless of course we adapt to not having to eat, or consume any sort of resources.

that was waaaaay offtopic Back on the comment Space Ghost made about geographic isolation, You said it yourself, if humans could not travel as freely, I don't think technology would be so relenting. Even so, How many generations do you think it takes for a complete change of species to occur? There's a good chance the human race would be extinct before that happens.

But there are so many assumptions to be made! even if someone comes up with a "pattern" after 5 thousand assumptions, someone else who has been thinking 5 thousand different ones could still be just as correct!

So that's who "they" are. Well, DOES it change anything?

wait, animals such as?

Well, they lost that battle, what else can they pull out of their sleeves? I can't think of any other arguments against evolution...