The Drawins Theory

The Darwin Theory
Some people tend to see (perhaps deliberately) only a small part of Darwin's Theory and then ignore the rest. That portion is "man descended from the ape", which of course he didn't say at all in the first place. That phrase when spoken alone tends to upset people and make them defensive. That's why some people tend to keep repeating it over and over, often in a strident voice. Darwin did surmise that man and ape came from a common ancestor. This is an entirely different concept - since he could have used an earthworm instead and been as truthful. In fact the human and a grain of wheat share about 27% of the same DNA structure - the earthworm far more. To make things worse the modern human is characterized by its belief that the sum total of life can be summarized into a bumper sticker making all other knowledge irrelevant.
But then one does not need the Darwin Theory or all of the scientific work done on genetics since Darwin or even an understanding of DNA to understand evolution. Ignore the fossil record! It can never give more than a fragmented record. One need look at only a few facts that are easily verifiable: All of the elements of the earth may be divided into two classes: inanimate things and living things. The dividing line between those two classes are that living things can reproduce themselves and inanimate things can not. Reproduction itself is the engine of evolution. When living things reproduce, they usually do not reproduce perfectly. There will be differences between them and their siblings and parents. Look at two oak trees or two pups from the same litter as compared to each other and to their parents. This is called divergence. If the difference from the parent is so great that it causes the new living thing to die before it reproduces then its lifeline will cease to exist. Its divergence was excessive and the result to that lifeline was fatal. If the difference between parent and child is so small that the child may survive as its parent did, then the lifeline carried between its parent through itself and to its offspring has lived through another test between its lifeline and the trials and tribulations of living. The physical characteristics of the lifeline are changing with each reproduction but the lifeline is remaining equipped as well as or better than is required to survive. Repeat steps 3 , 4 and 5 many billions of times across the earth each year for more than four billion years. Those three steps are called 'evolution'. Imagine the countless directions in form and behavior that would result. Look around you for the results. Verify this process through your own observation. Is this all there is to evolution? Of course not. Is this the end of the problem between religion and science? Of course not. In fact the real problem is only starting. What will the rift be, if this battle is allowed to continue, when biological computers are built, ones that can grow, heal themselves, reproduce and think? And how about nanotechnology with its use of biological material embedded in the human body? And what will the reaction be when biological functions specified in the human DNA are added to, subtracted from and modified to enhance health, demeanor, beauty and ability? And when entirely new life forms are created for specific purposes? Or extinct life forms are resurrected for study or display? And medicine is completely changed from disease diagnosis and medicine to one of modifying the DNA to avoid the disease in the first place. Will the result be human? Or will it be a completely new species?
Where did that first living fragment come from, some 4 billion or more years ago? Scientists will call its chance occurrence a singularity, an event with a near zero probability. Religious people could call that a miracle if they wish to do so, an event with zero probability. The difference between these two concepts is itself near zero. To argue over this difference is foolish.