However, the entire nature of the relationship would have changed the instant the wolf, or more than likely-wolves, were rescued from abandonment or captured for food and fur. The wolves would probably have been kept alive if young and grown to maturity therefore providing more food and fur.

If this is the case, and with wolves being pack orientated, the young wolves would probably have started to see the humans as their surrogate pack. With this mind set from the wolves the human tribes people would no doubt have noticed territorial and “pack-protective” behaviour from the wolves happening in their favour. Seeing displays of aggression to those that would prey on humans, be it other wolves or other tribes, the instinct in humans to improvise and survive would have enabled the tribes to realise the potential of keeping wolves. Obviously the more wolves a tribe could acquire and control the more secure the tribe and their land, livestock and food would be.

After keeping feral wolves captive for an unknown time, possibly for generations, emphasis on gaining proper and full control over the wolves would develop. I do not doubt that certain members of the tribes people, probably hunters, possibly those seeking increased status within the tribe, would have been tasked with the up keep and taming of the kept pack. Humans would very soon have realised that by breeding from their own pack, initially to self-replenish their own pack, certain characteristics would have become apparent. These characteristics would become more and more prominent with each breeding, certainly with increased inbreeding at least.

This is not to say that every kept pack was totally inbred. The act of excessive inbreeding would have caused deficiencies within the breed lines and consequent litters. Though it is probably safe to say that some deficiencies, such as shorter and broader muzzles or thicker, more heavily layered coats, would have been seen by some tribes as useful assets. The strong possibility of “outside” breeding, outside being those wolves not bred or even known to the tribes being captured for breeding, may have taken place.

Also, as humans are communal by nature, two friendly tribes probably would of interbred their packs to decrease inbreeding problems. Trades in breeding stocks for packs may well have taken place also. The possibility of escaped and stray pack dogs breeding outside the kept packs is another way for contamination of the wolf breed lines.

With interbreeding being overcome in numerous possible ways, some physical and behavioural characteristics seen as useful would have been encouraged in breed lines. For example: if a deficiency, such as a shorter and broader muzzle, allows for a firmer, wider and stringer bite, a tribe may well have viewed this useful for hunting wild boar. Therefore, any kept pack dogs with the shorter, broader muzzles would have taken a more important role in the breeding of the pack.

The result being more litters with the shorter and broader muzzle. With this selective breeding happening in every, or certainly most, tribes it is reasonable to assume that different looking dogs would be bred. The location and environment of each tribe and differing views on what trait was desirable in breeding would have determined the look of each tribes developing and ever changing pack of wolves.

From these changing, human kept packs, dogs with specific roles will have emerged. Especially as characteristics were bred in to dogs to suit the needs of the respective tribes. These needs will have ranged from hunting, to guarding, to herding, protecting and simple companionship. Though companion dogs will have been focused upon much, much later by nearly all those tribes keeping packs. The hunting and guarding dogs would more than likely have taken importance over the other role types. This importance will have been decided by the immediate necessity to hunt for food and the necessity to have constant protection.

Hunting dogs, being required to cover long distances, track and tackle various sized prey, probably existed mostly as tall, muscular, but slender sight and/or scent hounds. The breeds would initially have needed to be tall for a long gait and have a large lung capacity to hunt and track over great distances. The sight hounds may have resembled the modern greyhound or the borzoi.

Perhaps with more body mass as still being closely related to the wolf. With great speed, especially over a short distance during a hunt, these sight hounds would have had the dog to dog aggression bred out of them more thoroughly compared to other pack dogs. The reason for this being because a pack of dog aggressive dogs are incapable of hunting together as they would simply turn on one another.

The scent hounds may have had, or very probably did have, a heavier set body and head with a greater endurance over long distances at a slower speed than those of the sight hounds. These tracking hounds would not have needed to be as slender or as tall as the sight hounds. They may even not have been bred as dog friendly as they would have stayed much closer to the human hunter allowing for tighter human control. They would not have chased prey at a distance as far ahead like the sight hounds would have done.

The herding dogs, had these somewhat primitive, but developing, tribes had any, were probably more generic. Herding dogs would potentially of had medium to thick coats with two layers. A rough weather resistant layer first with a softer and warmer layer underneath. These dogs would have been used to round up cattle and flocks while under the watchful eyes of their human keepers, much like modern herding dogs today. These herding dogs may, occasionally, have been used as catch dogs.

Though the role of catch dog may well have fallen to the guard dogs. These dogs would have kept watch over not only herds and flocks, but the humans and their territory, property and their belongings. These would have been the largest, heaviest and probably by far the strongest breeds of them all. They would have been purposely bred to be tribe friendly but very highly intruder aggressive. Their role would have been focused on fighting off raiding tribes and attacking and scavenging animals, wild outside wolves in particular. The general appearance of these dogs may already have been similar to modern mastiffs, perhaps the Tibetan Mastiff or the Bullmastiff types in particular.

The colours of the various role types, hunter, herder, guarder, would have been determined by selective breeding to help camouflage the dogs. However, the guard dogs would not necessarily have needed camouflage assistance. Indeed, the Dogo Argentino, a modern molosser breed, was purposely bred to be totally white in colour. Guard dogs would have been bred in colours much distanced from predatory animals to help distinguish them from predators. Usually in twilight or other poor visibility conditions.

A guard dog in the same colour and coat type as an intruding wolf would risk being injured by the humans who may attempt to fend off the same predator, particularly when visibility is restricted or otherwise impaired.

So with that said it is, I think, reasonable to think that these guard dogs formed the root breeds for the modern mastiff types we have today. Breeds such as the Neopolitan and the Dogue de Bordeaux may in fact have a heritage through their breeding connecting them specifically to these ancient guard dogs.

In fact it is quite reasonable to suggest that all of today's modern domestic Mastiff, Molosser and Bulldog breeds owe their existence to the breeding of the ancient guard dogs. Be it through a direct descendancy or mixed breed heritage.

One dog that is classed by many as a modern Molosser breed is the afore mentioned Dogo Argentino. I shall use the Dogo as an example because its mixed breed heritage makes it perfect for two reasons.

The first being its mixed breed heritage displays exactly how cross breeding can produce an entirely separate and intentionally new breed. The basis for the Dogo Argentino was the Fighting Dog of Cordoba (now extinct). The basis for all domestic dogs was the wolf. To each was added something different to create something unique.

The second being the breeding time to create the Dogo is nothing short of a compressed history of the evolution of the dog. Where as the breeding evolution of the Dogo Argentino took some 75-80 years, starting in 1925, it mirrors what probably happened to the wolf over a time period spanning thousands of years.

Image source

Image source

Carnivorous plants refer to any meat-eating plants with urn-, trumpet-, or pitcher-shaped leaves. Asclepiadaceae (milkweed family), Sarraceniaceae (new world pitcher plants, or Sarracenia genus found in the eastern part of North America), and Nepenthaceae (Old World pitcher plants) are some of their examples. They inhibit primarily in wet or sandy meadows, savannas, swamps, bogs, fens, or any places where the soils are acidic, water-saturated, lack of phosphates or nitrates, and sunshine seasonally abundant living environments.

Image source

Image source

The known species of carnivorous plants are more than 660 species and 9 plant families, with the Venus flytrap being the famous and one of the most abundant species among them. Meanwhile, the Utricularia genus is identified as the largest number of the species on earth.

Image source

Image source

I think these plants do not appear as early as other prehistoric plants on earth. The reason is that they need Nitrogen as their essential nutrients for their growth. Most plants cannot absorb Nitrogen directly from the air, except for a small number of leguminous plants which are adapted with unique nitrogen-fixing property as in the example of Rhizobium.

Image source

Image source

Most carnivorous plants inhibit in some water-saturated places which are found to be more prone to lack of Nitrogen. In order to sustain the survival, most living things had by means to undergo certain evolution processes to enable themselves to be adapted with their own “fixing” property or to survive in low-nutrients environments. That means, they have to break down the insects to obtain their Nitrogen content (insect bodies contain about 10.5% nitrogen), and hence they are termed as meat-eating plants. The nitrogen content in their tissues that is obtained from their prey ranges from 20 to 75%, depending on their species (such as Cephalotus, Drosera, Nepenthes, Pinguicula, Sarracenia, Utricularia, and etc.). Apart from Nitrogen, Utricularia and Triphyophyllum are also known to absorb Magnesium and Potassium, while Sarracenia absorbs Phosphorus in prey. The adaptation of their leaves specially modified as traps enable them to obtain some nutrients by trapping and digesting various invertebrates, and occasionally they may even digest larger animals such as frogs and mammals.

Image source

Image source

Most carnivorous plants can carry out photosynthesis (a process which enables plants to make their own foods), besides digesting their prey to obtain essential nutrients. Meanwhile, they can sustain under extreme environmental surroundings. They are adapted with a prey-trapping mechanism feature characterizing by their deep cavity filled with liquid known as a pitfall trap. Scientists believe that they may have evolved from rolled leaves, with selection pressure favoring more deeply cupped leaves over relatively long evolutionary time. Some of them such as Nepenthes are placed within clades consisting particularly of flypaper traps, but some have evolved from flypaper traps by loss of mucilage. Very often, these plants climb by tendrils. The end of these tendrils may develop into pitchers, which help them to capture and digest insects.

Image source

In insectivorous plants (insects are one of their common prey items), their leaves appear in the form of deep cups or pitchers in which visiting insects will fall into them. Once in the plant, the prey tumbles down into a liquid pool and drowns, and then they are digested by the action of enzymes secreted by cells located in the walls in their pitcher-like structures of these plants. The digestion of prey releases nitrates and other nutrients, and these essential nutrients are then absorbed for their growth.

Photos credit: Christy Kale

The Venus flytrap, which has leaf lobes, is one of the wonder in the world of plants as this carnivorous plant can capture its prey very quickly in a terrifying way. The Utricularia genus is an underwater plant, which can suck its prey into bladders with its fastest-acting trap in times as short as 1/30 of a second. Meanwhile, the complex-acting trap belongs to genus Genlisea.

Nepenthes or the Monkey cup (the tropical pitcher plant) satisfies its appetite with crawling bugs, insects, and even in certain rare cases, rat or bird that could not find its way out of a Nepenthes pitcher becomes sick or near death in its trap. The centipede may cry in help if it is accidentally trapped by Nepenthes. Like Nepenthes, Venus also involves in the vertebrate buffet as it has been observed with frog skeletons in its trap. Utricularia and Aldrovanda live with their traps submerging in water and they capture rotifers, daphnia, mosquito larvae and other larger aquatics as their foods. Pinguicula and Drosera captures moths, flies, gnats and other flying insects as their prey. The genus Genlisea captures protozoans. It is scary to see pitcher plants such as Cephalotus, Nepenthes, Sarracenia digest wasps, butterflies, beetles, ants, spiders, and flies in a tremendously rapid and terrible manner!

Image source

Carnivorous plants such as Venus flytraps, sundews, butterworts, and many genera of pitcher plants make their own digestive enzymes (such as ribonuclease, chitinase, amylase, peroxidise, phosphatise, protease, lipase, and esterase) to help digest and dissolve the protein in their prey. Nevertheless, other types of these plants (such as Heliamphora) depend wholly on bacteria to provide them the appropriate enzymes. They let the food rotting in their traps, before consuming the decomposed molecules as they are unable to secrete the digestive juices to aid in digestion. There is also an obvious symbiotic relationship found among the carnivorous plants (such as Sarracenia purpurea) as they rely upon both bacterially generated enzymes and their own enzymes. In this case, the bacteria get comfortable and cool places to live on these plants, while the plants enjoy the bug-soup digested by the bacteria.

Each of these carnivorous plants is very smart in playing tricks to attract their prey. These hungry carnivores emit deadly sweet scent; some have patches of pigmentation on their traps, or brightly colored nectar-like orbs to beguile their prey; some bear sticky, gummy, wet and slippery parts to curb their captured prey from being escaping away. The prey with “straight and simple brains”, of course, will always find hard to run away from those strange downward-pointing hairs, or slippery chambers attaching to these plants. Not enough to these descriptions, there are always dangerous traps and tricks such as sucking bladders, snapping jaws, and woefully efficient narcotic compounds abound these hungry carnivores. So, animals should beware and mind their steps before selecting places for them to rest on or stop. Otherwise, they will be doomed to death.

Meeting Half-way

Hypothetically, let's say for a moment that a god (ie creator and manager of the universe) exists. Let's stipulate further that he actually wanted to tell humanity about how he created everything. Even further, let's stipulate that for reason or reasons unfathomable to us, he decided that the best way to pass on that message was via one or more naked hermits living isolated in desert caves and eating bees to survive.

The Source

Given all this, we can see where so-called "creationists" got their story. Is it even remotely plausible that this prophet or prophets could have gotten the story right in the excruciating detail necessary to pass on the concepts leading up to evolution, much less evolution itself? Even if god spent a few years explaining the intricacies of how he engineered the big bang, set up the laws of physics, devised chemistry, caused chemical processes to give rise to biological ones, and used a results-driven eliminatory development process to arrive at his current release version of life, what would our hypothetical prophet have written down? Could he have possibly grasped what was being dumped into his head?

The wisest, most educated person on the planet 3000-5000 years ago couldn't have comprehended that data, much less our half-crazed, unbathed bee-eater! And even if he could have comprehended it, by divine intervention, how could he have possibly explained it to other humans? Human languages of the time couldn't even express the concepts needed to *develop* the language to explain it all.

Our hypothetical phophet would have had to fall back on the same techniques we use on our kids when they aren't ready for the full details of an explanation: "Because God Said So". So we see that, regardless of divine inspiration, the bible's creation story cannot possibly be relied on as objective fact, but rather as an allegory used to simplify an explanation.

Taking Back the What-Ifs

And all that's only valid if somebody's god exists. Personally, I think religions are invented by power-hungry nuts who get off on telling other people how to live their lives....

Finally, let's look at evidence here. Creationists have two pieces of evidence, one of several somewhat dubious books written several thousand years ago by our "prophet(s)", and the complexity of life. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is supported by billions of fossils, carbon dating, mathematical analysis, selective breeding practices themselves thousands of years old, and literally hundreds of reproducible experiments. Even if 90% of the arguments for evolution out to be false, the vast preponderance of observable evidence would still fall on the side of evolution.

The Kicker

Creationists (or intelligent design advocates - the same people, really) who say that the sheer complexity and elegance of life are too great to have developed on their own still miss the point that our universe's most awesome wonder is it's inherent force to self-organize. Look for your god in that force, not in some silly self-contradictory myths written by people who could never have grasped the truths of the story they were telling anyway!

Of course we have all heard people, from all different directions, weigh in on their thoughts about creation and others about evolution. Sadly it seems a majority of those persons are not really interested in an honest assessment of the facts and the variety of variables to be considered. There are creationists, who first of all misrepresent the actual creation account, and then there are people who just want to attack anything they deem religious so they gather scientific findings and emphasize only the data to support there view of evolution. "That's a myth or that's just a theory" is all you often hear instead of an open dialog of the facts and information available.

Thankfully we are fortunate to have an abundance of scientists supplying data or evidence to examine concerning or connected to evolution. There is a plethora of reading material and empirical studies to review and meditate on. There is also educated guessing you can preview. Much of which regardless of your stance on evolution is quite interesting and informative.

Somewhat puzzling though, are those who have concluded from these various sources that evolution is irrefutable and therefore there is no reason to examine any information that calls into question evolution and anything connected to it. And then there are others who take the path of least resistance and instead of actually doing the study and research, they claim that only evolution is researchable or empirical.

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. The word science is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, the nominal form of the verb scire, "to know". The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root that yields scire is *skei-, meaning to "cut, separate, or discern". Science n 1- the study and theoretical explanation of natural phenomana 2 - a systematic activity requiring study and method 3- Knowledge esp, that aquired through experience (Websters II)

The hardcore evolutionists are much like creationists in that they insist they are right because everyone else is wrong. And both complain about this juvenile argument being cast in their face or general direction.

So what about the discerning person who is interested in facts and looking for evidence to base their understanding and belief on? We certainly have enough people doing the research on evoltuionary theory. And that is a good thing. However, what about creation? Is there a method or a test that is empirically sound?

Yes there is a way of testing or researching creation. Of course people who have their own definition of science would deny this, but frankly they are often people who don't want to invest the time and humility that is required to put creation to the test. Instead those people come across as if it is beneath them to evaluate anything they do not deem relevant.

So for those who do not have any personal agenda and sincerely want to examine creation as a credible explanation of our existence or just weigh it in comparison with their beliefs about evoltuion, here is the method you can follow as to the reliablity of creation. Note to reader: I have volumes of information I have accumalted over 25 years of study relating to evolution and creation. Not only would it take an endless amount of articles to do it all justice, I have never intended to incite debate or to influence conclusions but instead only encourage a search for all the facts. There is plenty of questions we will still have in the end but that is because of the overwhelming amount of information we still need to learn. And I am not interested in people learning from my research nor am I interested in people arguing with me about things they haven't even studied themselves. Actually arguments lead to nothing anyhow. As a result the following is for honest hearted individuals who may have or still are considering the studies supporting evolution but who have never taken the time to discern how or if they can learn about and test creation.

1. You need to personally examine the creation account. Not the word or explanation of a creationist or what someone tells you creation is but actually study the creation account. This will help you determine exactly what questions the Genesis account is answering and what questions it is not. So aside from a study of the Bible account you need to examine the Hebrew from which the words are translated from so that for example you will know what the Bible means when it says "in the beginning" and what it does not mean. And like biology or medical research this is not a casual study.
2. Once you have an accurate grasp of what creation is and what it isn't you naturally need to test the reliability of the source of this information. Why it may be easy for some to except that God provided this information, there is more to it than that for the skeptical people or anyone for that matter. This will require extensive research of numerous corraborating historical writings that support the accuracy of the Bible. In a similiar fashion if you take the time to study the reliance that archeology place on the Bible it will also provide and add more credence to the accuracy of Bible writings. In fact, as an example, the Bible has filled in the blanks concerning people and geographical places in history. Maps have been drawn and determined based on Biblical information for instance. Not to be overlooked is the exhaustive research done by linguists who have authenticated the Bible by the study of languages. All of this also includes the fact that you can find the comparisons made by ancient manuscripts, dating back thousands of years, that coincide with modern versions that will also demonstrate that the Bible is a credible source of information. And like step 1 this is not a cursory look at the account and the source of this account. Like any scientific method all emprical data must be considered. And both steps have an historical and observable element.
3. Then you have recent studies in genetics, biology, and even to some extent mathematics, to equally evaluate. Then you need to see how and what details of creation support or are supported by these sciences. This would also include studies of sciences on how matter comes about and what variables we need to include from the Universe around us. Keeping in mind of course that the creation was never intended to go through every detail of creation and its effect on its results.
4. I also have personally included the study of sociology and psychology. Afterall it is a part of nature and it is an observable aspect of nature. And they are both sciences. It is evident to me that our actions, concerns, and reactions are very telling as to the nature of our existence.

So there you have a basic outline of what you can do to make a tangible study and examine the creation model as it is outlined. I am not suggesting that you will come to any specific conclusion. I am suggesting that it seems presumptuous to draw conclusions about information you have barely studied. And that includes any subject.

I hope this article has been helpful to some who have often wondered how to examine the creation account.

Creationist and Evolutionist are on opposite sides of the same coin. And neither can see the other because of the edge which divides them. I want you to read this article and give it serious thought before you decide whether or not to believe it.

I have studied many religions, and a variety of related practices. I have also attempted to analyze the results of both belief and unbelief. My conclusion is that neither can take a dominant position. In fact, I D and Evolution are joined at the hip. Consider this: Creation requires evolution to effect change without radical instantaneous jumps from one level to the next. Time itself flows effortlessly from one moment to the next. After the fact, one can state the transition as a defined measurement, but in the moment, the moment itself goes by unnoticed. And evolution has to have a starting point and a terminal point to define the process from one state of existence to the next. Each evolutionary process like the moment in time cannot be appreciated until the conclusion of the sequence.

For only then can it be traced to the beginning or the end of that particular segment! Each beginning is for all practical purposes a creation. Perspective can allow us to use the words creation and invention interchangeably for the purpose of my delineation of the symmetry here. Consider a computer. There once was an original computer. It could be argued that the first one was a sundial. But at the time no one could have realized it. The first could have been a skinny tree, or a dead one. Later, marks on the ground were added. Evolution was to adapt to the changing need to mark time. Then, the design of a movable dial was added. Later, much later after a serious of trials and modifications, a clock was developed. Then, refined and reduced into a watch.

Manual, spring, windup, then batteries, then lcd. Variations of displays, solar, alarms, somewhere a branch led to an abacus, eventually the other branches, bicycles and their varieties, radio, tv, cars, motorcycles, cell phones, desk tops, laptops, wireless... Looking back one can see the creation of a simple but efficient devise. Today, we look at some of the origins and wonder what was on someone's mind to come up with some of the insane developments that went nowhere, but natural selection, or feasibility took care ensure the survival of the fittest.

As with biological organisms, mechanicals devices are related and follow different evolutionary patterns, but have a shared need and are interdependent, just as we are in our ecosystems. And I hope you see my point. Without evolution, creation would be meaningless as the eternal perfection has no place to go, because it is already there. And without and origin, evolution cannot progress because it needs a point of origin from which to analyze the process of change. So my friends, from my point of view, these two are not independent, but dependent.

They finally had diverged enough from brown bears to be classified as there own species, although in captivity the two currently produce fertile offspring (Rosing, N., 1996). It has even been stated that polar bears have “been shown to possess the most advanced evolutionary adaptation of any previously studied hibernating mammal to conditions of no food or water” (Talbot and Shields, 1996). These adaptive traits not only include unique hibernation patterns, but also physiological and morphological advantages, and behavioral radiation. Unfortunately, not all adaptive traits remain beneficial throughout the course of life's history, and as the biosphere changes an organism must continuously adapt as well. Whether prior adaptations can be reversed or continue to be modified is a question not easily answered (I. B. Weiner., et al., 2003). For instance, will global warming lead to the end of the polar bear?

An inference made from the study of mitochondrial DNA strongly implies that polar bears have diverged from the same linage as brown bears currently living on the islands of southeast Alaska. Both extant groups are believed to have descended from brown bears in the proximity of Siberia that had expanded into North America (Talbot and Shields, 1996). Since their initial divergence they have come to inhabit such areas as Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the USA (Howell-Skalla, L. A., et al., 2002). Despite geographical differences experiments have shown little genetic variation among these populations indicating minute independent adaptations (Paetkau, D., et al., 1999), which can be complimented with the fact that polar bears are a relatively new species; the last descendant of the Ursine evolutionary linage (Struzek, Ed, 2003, Rosing, N., 1996). Since other bears, especially modern brown bears most likely share a common ancestor with that of polar bears, brown bears are a great model to use in comparison due to their similarities. Many traits unique to polar bears may be due to the initial adaptations that were gradually introduced by their ancestors as their habitat shifted closer and closer to that which polar bears now occupy. Modern brown bears have proven to be capable of living very close to the harsh environment of the winter arctic, which basically means that the first generations of the evolving white bears started with the same good genes.

As top carnivore of the arctic it is no surprise that polar bears are the largest living, some are estimated to weigh as much as 800 kg, and are even known as the “King of the Arctic”, and globally hold the record as largest terrestrial carnivore. They can easily kill a 450 pound walrus with a single blow of its paw. These great white bears may also be considered a keystone species as they help reduce the population of seals, and provide carcass remains for arctic foxes, ravens, and glaucous gulls who also call the arctic their home. The males live an average of 25 years, where as females live slightly longer (Struzek, Ed, 2003; Rosing, N., 1996).

Their physical appearance is similar to a brown bear, but polar bears lack a shoulder hump, have a longer neck, smaller ears and a short tail to reduce heat loss (Demaster and Stirling, 1981; Kolenosky, G. B., et al., 1992; Gunderson, A., 2007). The polar bears specialized ears contain a network of blood vessels selected to bring extra heat to one of their only exposed regions where they experience heat loss (Rosing, N., 1996 ). They also have larger and sharper teeth allowing them to tear up seals efficiently (Struzek, Ed, 2003). Polar bears are the only bear that is primarily carnivorous with a digestive system more adapted to processing meat than plant matter, although they are still omnivores. Measuring isotopes of a polar bears breathe has proven that they actually eat berries, which happen to be high in fat. In Canada during the months of August and September they have also been observed consuming berries as they start their journey northward along the coast until the Hudson Bay freezes over; an example of their intelligence and survival skills in the absence of prey.

Another adaptive trait is their large thickly furred, webbed feet with rough foot pads, and short claws that are immune to frostbite. These features allow them to travel on ice and swim much more efficiently then other bears (Struzek, Ed, 2003; Rosing, N., 1996). Only visible around the eyes and nose a polar bears skin color is black, and their fur usually appears white due to a refraction of sunlight, but the hairs are actually clear. Colors such as yellow, brown, and gray have also been observed in a polar bears fur, associated with light conditions dependent upon the season. (Gunderson, A., 2007). Short insulating fur, and long, hollow, oily and water repellent guard hairs combined with large stores of fat, aka blubber, anabolized (created) during hyperphagia (a state of increased appetite and consumption) act as an insulation that is vital to the endothermic regulation of this great white viviparous (give birth to live young) mammal. This insulation is so efficient that aerial photographers are unable to use infrared technology to spot polar bears in the wild. The only heat emissions observable came from their breathe. They release so little heat that the snow on their back does not even melt! (Rosing, N., 1996).

Daniel Koon conducted an experiment to determine if the clear, hollow hairs on a polar bear conducted ultraviolet light fiber optically. The test disproved this widely accepted theory. Instead, it is the keratin protein of the hair that is absorbing the energy into the bears dark skin (Ned Rozell, 1998), and has led scientists to understand just how well polar bears have become adapted to the harsh and volatile arctic. This is good news for these endothermic mammals as they can utilize energy emitted from the sun to supplement their efforts of obtaining and conserving energy as a secondary consumer in order to maintain their internal temperatures during the day, but it does not necessarily help them at night when there is no sunlight providing any means of heat energy. Experiments using Kirchoff's laws, and Beer's law, both being methods to test the transmittance and absorptivity of energy, have shown that polar bear hair is a also a good absorber of infrared light, which helps greatly in obtaining heat energy in the dark when temperatures are significantly lower (Preciado, J. A., et al., 2002). Amazingly, moonlight supplies a steady transmission of the infrared light wavelength. A physics term labeled as “black body radiation” is used to describe the effects of the sun's energy being absorbed and reflected off of the moon, therefore supplying earth with relatively long wavelengths of infrared light. In places such as Alaska it is dark during some of the coldest winter months, and the full spectrum of light is unavailable to be absorbed through the bears dark skin making the animals ultraviolet and infrared absorbing abilities more useful than just at night. Human hair also possesses this amazing trait, however, polar bear hair absorbs 4 % more infrared than human hair. If you multiply that by the much larger amount of hairs per square centimeter a polar bear has it is at a much greater advantage (Preciado, J. A., et al., 2002).

Ironically, in addition to the success of a polar bears hair composition it's white appearance may have increased it's success at catching prey. Seals which are their main food source have monochromatic vision, meaning they see only black and white. Even though white bears appear camouflage even in trichromatic vision (full color), it may be even more difficult for a seal to detect a predator. These large, white creatures display a good deal of intelligence in their methods of hunting for food. They have been observed taking advantage of their camouflage to sneak up on unsuspecting seals in their dens. The bears would actually scratch away the snow slowly as they lay right on top of the lair imitating the ice and snow above the lair. In addition, the bears will lay quietly on a sheet of ice with only their head projecting (resembling a protrusion of the platform) until a seal came close enough to snatch up with a single paw (Matthews, D., 1993).

Ursus maritimus have become known as “walking hibernators” due to their unique physiology allowing them to survive through long periods of starvation. This is accomplished much like hibernation seen in black bears (Ursusamericanus) and brown bears, however, polar bears stay motile in search for food while urea nitrogen is converted into plasma proteins to avoid build up of toxic wastes and aid in the reutilization of nutrients (Lennox, A. R. and A. E. Goodship, 2008). This is made possible by the re-absorption of urea through the bladder wall into the blood stream, where it is metabolized into useful proteins resulting in no net increase in toxic waste (Nelson, R. A., et al., 1980). Only pregnant polar bears den like their sister species in order to provide shelter for their under-developed newborns (Rosing, N., 1996). Their ability to roam during a hibernative state may be due to the very low temperatures in the arctic region, limiting and slowing down the life processes that call for more energy. During hibernation most bear temperatures decrease a few degrees, which in turn slows their metabolism. This process is called torpor. Torpor patterns are not predictable in sea bears like they have been noted in black bears most likely due to the unpredictable availability of food sources (Palmer, S. S., et al., 1988) . As food sources can be few and far between, it is no surprise that polar bears have adopted random torpor patterns, which can be complimented with random sleep patterns. Based on their necessity to survive the bears have been known to take many short naps throughout the day in between their almost never ending search for food (Matthews, D., 1993).

Great white bears have hearing comparable to that of humans, a great sense of smell, and good vision which tends to be farsighted. It's olfactory senses are so good, “It can detect young seals hiding in a snow cave buried under three feet of snow nearly a mile away” (Rosing, N., 1996). It has also been said that they can smell only a few molecules at distances as great 20 miles away (Matthews, D., 1993). Dichromatic vision enables them to see blue and green colors in addition to black and white, which can put them at an advantage when hunting in their monochrome world.

Polar bears sexually mature at the age of four or five, but males don't breed until 8 years old (Struzek, Ed, 2003). Like other bears, females are induced ovulators (W. Boone, 2003.; Rosing, N., 1996) and are usually fertilized in early spring when seal pups are plentiful. The following egg implantation is delayed for about 6 months until the fall when the mother begins to dig out a den where she will stay for as long as 9 months. From the time she enters the den it only takes from one to two months before she gives birth (Drew, L., and M. Hoshino, 1996/1997) to 2 or 3 cubs no larger than a 2 pound tree squirrel (Rosing, N., 1996). The young are completely helpless at birth and may require the care of mother for approximately another 6 months, however, the new family usually remains together as the cubs continue to nurse from1-1/2 to 2-1/2 years. The cubs will usually stay together until the females mature enough to start their own families around the age of 5. At birth the cubs are not able to see, but they do have long, pointed claws useful in reaching nipples hidden in their mothers thick fur. Unique to polar bears, the mother's milk contains 40% fat providing more essential fat than any other bear helping them to develop more quickly (Rosing, N., 1996). Interestingly, 50% of female polar bears den in offshore glaciers. A Russian biologist by the name of Nikita Ovsyanikov believes that this is done purposely due to a mothers need to find food for her young when she digs out of the den in spring. By drifting on glaciers the bears can travel several hundred kilometers possibly increasing their chances of finding a plentiful food supply (Drew, L., and M. Hoshino, 1996/1997).

Polar bears, called Nanook by the Inuit, are excellent swimmers spending as much as 2 hours in water traveling lengths as great as 60 miles. However, this is unusual and usually a sign of the negative affects of global warming. A temperature increase of only 2-3 degrees during the summer, since 1950, has been enough to melt ice so dramatically that people have been finding an increased amount of bear carcasses due to drowning (Iredale, W., 2005). Some polar bears will actually walk entirely across the Hudson Bay from Manitoba to Quebec (500 miles) in a single winter (Rosing, N., 1996) showing the dangers they may face during the warming months of spring. If rates of global warming continue to proceed it is quite apparent that these sea bears just may not make it back to shore on time.

Polar bears have also been known to be social and playfully interactive (Drew, L., and M. Hoshino, 1996/1997; Rosing, N., 1996) and even express their love of play throughout adult-hood. Photographer Norbert Rosing was actually a witness to an adult bear in Manitoba, Canada playing with an old tire, and was able to snap some really amazing pictures. Some have suggested these behaviors are to refine social behavior, although most bear species typically live solitary lifestyles. For the younger bears, these play sessions will aid in the development of skills that will increase their chances for success as they get older. Intelligence is an important aspect in the survival of these bears, and walking on ice is a great example of this. Walking on melting ice can be risky business if one is not careful. Polar bears run the chance of falling through the ice and never surfacing again, and it is clear they know this if you ever have the chance to watch one. They walk very carefully making great use of their giant paws and spreading their legs far apart, and if they sense the ice is going to break they actually may drop to the ground, limbs spread wide, in an attempt to slide forward (Rosing, N., 1996).

Even though polar bears received little impact from human development as of 1984 and currently hold the highest proportion of their original range compared to other large carnivores (Derocher, A. E., et al., 2004) they are still in danger from global warming and pollution. One population, in particular, located on the southwestern Hudson Bay coast is used commonly as an example of the loss of an ice habitat due to global warming. This specific population happens to be among the southern-most where the affect of global warming would be most visible (Dyck, M. G., et al., 2007). Bears may drown in the ocean when ice thaws out and cannot find refuge, or over heat on shore during the warm months. Usually migration during climatic changes can aid in the survival of this species, but if the current rates of global warming remain steady the positive effects of migration will not be feasible. Possibly due to global warming, grizzly bears may even replace polar bears in the arctic as they have already been seen on the ice tundra. On the other hand, both bears produce fertile hybrids which may be the key to positive gene flow enabling the genetic variation needed to aid in the polar bears survival. Despite the fact that this intermingling has yet to be seen in nature, you never know how these animals may react when put into an actual life or death situation.

In one unfortunate case in 1991, Biologist Mitch Taylor observed the remains of several polar bear pups that had been eaten by a grizzly bear in Viscount Melville Sound. Grizzly bears had never before been seen as far as 600 km's from the main land, but since then have been spotted more and more. Experiments are underway to find out exactly what these grizzlies are doing there, and if this is something they have always done, but is most likely for the same reasons the polar bears first entered the arctic - a new, more abundant food source with limited competition. The brown bears habitat is also decreasing in size as the human population pushes them to their limits, and forces them to find a new place to live. A government wildlife officer of Nunavut, Joe Niego, says, “...a lot of animals are moving east toward Hudson Bay because of global warming....we've seen marten, which are never found this far east, a few river otters, and a lot more grizzlies than usual....I saw a pack of wolverines just west of Baker Lake. I've never seen that before.” (Struzek, Ed, 2003).

Environmental pollution resulting in high levels of organochlorine contaminants becoming stored in the adipose cells of sea bears during hyperphagia is of large concern to scientists as well, because these pollutants found largely in pesticides can later become antagonistic to hormone-dependent processes (C. Sonne et al., 2005). This pollution is inescapable and affects all animals in the arctic regions with polar bears on top of the food chain pyramid experiencing the effects 100 fold compared to fish, for example, at the bottom of the food chain. Canadian scientists have observed that present-day polar bears are smaller in size, and produce less offspring then they did just 25 years ago. High PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls - another pollutant) levels have been observed in North American populations and sadly the concentration in populations of sea bears in Norway and Russia have reached dangerously high levels. Fewer polar bears are being recorded in these areas with over 50 % of the metapopulation residing in Canadian Territory! In addition, current laws have relaxed the polar bears protection policies and nearly all countries serving as their home now allow hunting (Rosing, N., 1996; worsleyschool.net, 2001). Interestingly, polar bears living in captivity appear to live as much as 1.6 times longer than in the wild with captive bears recorded to live as old as 40 years! This may be due to the absence of pollutants in their new habitat.

Despite all of the adaptive traits that have, so far, put Ursus maritimus on the top of the Arctic food chain there are no adaptive traits that seem to help against humans and their negative effects on the environment and these massively, wondrous mammals. Only time will tell if polar bears will survive and/or adapt to the increasing threats of the modern world. It is really up to us, the only extant humanid species, to preserve our environment and to attempt to reverse the negative affects of our actions in order to increase the probability of success for all species in the only inhabitable world, thus far, we know.

In anatomy there are a few facts that support the theory of evolution. One of these facts is that different species have similar features based on their surroundings. An example of this would be that the whale's ancestors used to live on land. This is because as the habitat changed for a whale, the bone structure also changed. Anatomists can see that the bone structure changed from a land animal to one that lives in the water. Also this is seen in animals that have arms, fore limbs, flippers, and wings. All of these share the same bones. Another fact would be that human and primate records compare to each other. This is another clue that humans have evolved from primates.

There is also information that supports evolution from molecular biology. Humans today share the same DNA as Neanderthals. This is a major clue that humans have evolved over time. Another fact is that all life forms have a similar chemical make up as the early species. An example of this would be that the marine worm and the segmented worm shared the same HOX gene.

Paleontologists have been able to find that fossils that are deeper in rocks show progress over time in the same species. This means as the newer rock layers come the same species have changed. Paleontology has also been able to find that sharks have been around twice as long as the dinosaurs had. This means that there was life before the dinosaurs and that they are still alive today.

A piece of evidence can also go either way. One fact is that in a layer of rock there is no sign of life form but when you go one layer up there is an explosion of life. This can be said to be proof of evolution or against evolution. To say it is for evolution there could have been only bacteria living during this time. Bacteria do not fossilize. To say that this is against evolution this evidence says that there was no life before this time and life just started here.

How we became who we are today is one of the greatest mysteries of life. To try and solve the theory of evolution all you can do is gather evidence.

This theory deals with the basic units of life, cells. Discovered by Robert Hooke.

Theory of Special Relativity

This is the theory that has popular equation E = mc^2. Discovered by Albert Einstein.

Theory of Gravity

A physical law that describes gravitational attraction between mass. Discovered by Isaac Newton.

Theory of General Relativity

Combines Special Relativity and Gravity, creating a more accurate description of gravity. Discovered by Albert Einstein.

Theory of Evolution

Describes the process in which inherited traits are passed down, where the genes can mutate, affecting the organism's chance of survival and breeding.

These are 5 major theories that shape life around us.

Definition of a Scientific Theory: "The summarization of a hypothesis/many hypotheses with evidence to support it, including many successful tests, with no contradictory results."

Humans have already begun to push boundaries with the use of more advanced technology. One example of this is the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep. Although highly experimental, the cloning of Dolly proved to the world that technology today is so advanced that we might even be capable of reproducing ourselves. Cloning also makes one wonder what else humans are capable knowing that we are so highly sophisticated today that we can even make more of ourselves. It also makes one wonder what could possibly be next. Some people fear that our next step will be not only to reproduce, but to also alter the genetic codes of the fetus to create what we see as the “perfect” child. Technology is responsible for this genetic feat, not nature, and technology will thus be able to continue to add humans in their advancements beyond what nature has so far accomplished.

Another similar example is the completion of the human genome project in 2000. This project mapped out all the genes in the human body, together known as the genome, as well as their locations. Essentially, we now know what “instructions” we inherit and how those genes control the development and the functions of a human being. So far, the human genome project is just at the stage where we understand how our DNA is structured, but not so much of what it all is responsible for, or what making changes to the structure will effect. Our knowledge is ever expanding in the genetic field though, and eventually just about any change to the human form might become more than just an aspiration or an idea, but a reality, and not only for the alterations of humans to fit needs and/or desires, but also the alterations of animal genes to suit human needs and/or desires. Without the advancements we have made in technology today, the human genome project never would have even been a possibility.

When people brainstorm on ideas of humans advancing more with technology or with biology, they tend to think more along the lines of using technology to affect biology, but technology is capable of controlling much more than just the biology aspects. As Francis Fukuyama discusses in Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, the book 1984 begins to outline other fears/goals humans need to consider. In 1984, Orwell creates a world in which homes contain a device he calls a telescreen, or in other words, a flat screen television that send and receives images simultaneously. The images sent and received all are linked to one giant telescreen known as Big Brother. Basically, this book outlines the fact that humans can become so technologically advanced that the technology is used against us by ourselves. Essentially, the telescreens are representing the citizens of a nation, and the Big Brother represents the control the government has over each citizen. The invention of the IBM pc and the internet in 1984 is a prime example of how technology almost brought Orwell's theory to life.

To most, it is clear that technology undoubtedly will prevail over biology, but some people reject the idea. Charles Darwin created a theory that discussed how creatures, such as humans, will always find a way to evolve around their surroundings. He did not mention technology per say, but if his theory is applied to knowledge of today, Darwin is saying that, even if we use technology to change our lifestyles, evolution will still simply cause an adaptation. He's saying that it doesn't matter what we use technology to change, nature will always push us to the next step of evolution, even if that means adapting around the technological advances. Darwin lived in a time that had little technology compared to that of today, but even in past times, possibilities were beginning to become evident. One example of this is the book The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, written in 1895. Wells, although creating a concept known in that time as pure fiction, realized what could become reality, and in the book, expanded on what he thought could come from such an invention.

The man in the story traveled years into the future, stopping numerous times to examine the cultural differences in society during various time periods. What is most relevant to the topic of technology, though, are three scenes from the most recent movie modeled after Well's book. One scene shows a world based solely on technology. The things the man sees is something more advanced than even today with hover crafts and talking images. The man is dissatisfied in a way and decides to advance further. When he does, he sees the world destroyed, and when he inquires about the cause of the destruction, he finds that the technology inevitably changed nature, and nature became the ultimate end to the age. This portion of the movie was the second scene of importance.

The third scene of importance is the world he finds years beyond even that period, a world created a second time from nothing. It is first seen that no real technology exists, just simple inventions that are necessary for the survival of the people, but later, dreams of the people lead the man to find a separate race that developed. The second race ruled over the more primitive race because it already was advancing. The second race was modified by evolution and represents Darwin's theory. At the end of the movie, evolution did not win; the race was easily destroyed because evolution alone was not capable of protecting the race from threats, and more importantly, technology.

To me, people such as Darwin seem to present a viable argument, but they always fail to explain one key concept. In the movie, everything that was created by nature was destroyed by nature, and the world, in a sense, was given another chance, but essentially, even in the most basic of times, the people already were developing a hunger for things only technology could provide.

Another argument usually presented in the discussion of technology vs. biology is that of biblical teachings. Genesis tells of how God created everything from nothing. Many people say that because God created all living creatures, one of these being humans, which were not even the first creature created, that no one type of creature should control the other. People argue that controlling the weak is more or less playing God, and that is something humans have no right to do.

In my opinion, this theory also is not substantial enough to prove that biology/evolution will always prevail. In Genesis, it states, “God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground"”. Even God, himself, instructed humans to be the dominant species on earth, and he also instructed humans to multiply. Never did God ever state in Genesis how humans were to accomplish these tasks. There is no proof that how life is evolving now is not exactly how God intended life to be. If God is all knowing, surely he knew that life would occur as it has before it ever did, and if he disapproved, God should have the power to stop what he disapproves of.

Humans were created with abilities and the knowledge, and have slowly honed these skills to a point where life is more controllable. It may not be morally corrected to “play God”, but it is a possibility that humans alone can control. The minute the majority of the human race decides to stop using technology to advance, it can. As far as I am concerned, biology always exists, but it is not the deciding factor on human evolution, anymore. God made it human nature to control, and control we always will.

In truth, both sides have valid points. People on both sides appear close-minded about any ideas or evidence outside of their comfort zone. This article may shed some light on the Theory of Evolution for people who either don't understand, or have incomplete information about how theories actually work.

Here is one example we all can relate to: gravity. Gravity is still a theory, not a fact. Some of the effects of gravity are observable facts, and these we call Laws; Isaac Newton set these Laws down in the 17th century, and proposed a theory around them. However, gravity is still a theory because we don't know all of the effects or causes of gravity entirely. This is proved by the fact that Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, proposed in the 1920's, has two theories: Special Relativity and General Relativity. All three theories concern gravity and all have proven Laws at work. However, science is only beginning to scratch the surface of these theories.

Science takes demonstratable, repeatable, actions and reactions, and calls them Laws. One of Newton's Laws of motion states that "An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force." This is true and repeatable. Drop an orange on the floor. Continue to drop it, as many times as it takes to convince you that it will continue to hit the floor.

However, that is not the end of what gravity does. Therefore, we need explanations for why other observations happen as they do either according to the Laws set down or according to their own laws. Now you have a working theory concerning gravity so long as everything within it continues to act according to that theory. If something changes, you write a new theory to include those observations.

Having now laid a frame of reference about what a theory is, we can move on to the question of Evolution.

The theory of Evolution is not one of organisms deciding they would be better off as this or that organism; or a hodge-podge of mere accidents resulting in the order presently enjoyed out of the previous chaos. Evolution begins with an event scientists call "The Big-Bang". The accuracy of the big bang is somewhat questionable perhaps, although the universe is expanding, and that would be a logical assertion for why.

Now we move on to the formation of planets and solar systems. Where is the problem in stating that a planet coalesces into being from materials around it? If there is a sufficiently dense material like iron, and it is spinning, there would be a gravitational force attached to it that would then attract nearby materials into its gravitational sphere. Like a magnet attracting iron particles some distance away from it. We need to remember that untold thousands of billions of planets have already formed in our galaxy, and are still forming. In order to get a better picture of this we need to visualize our area of space as it was when it was forming, not as we see it now.

It doesn't take much imagination for our iron core to be spinning, most everything we see in our solar system and beyond is spinning to one degree or another. From there, little imagination is required to make a planet. Iron is one of the most prevalent materials in the world, and apparently in our galaxy. Meteorites, Comets and Asteroids all have concentrations of it, sometimes very high concentrations. Therefore, an iron core for a planet is definitely not outside of probability.

Once we have the planets, whether they are gas giants with a relatively small area of actual solidity or planets like the earth that are all solid with the exception of water, it is very easy to envision them coming across one another and forming orbits.

Saturn has 46 known moons, so far. Some are little more than asteroid-like rocks, others are potential planets with life giving water. If we can picture two or three planets moving within space and meeting one another, then visualizing the effects of gravity and relative speed being even somewhat correct, we can then have our developing solar system revolving around one another. All that is necessary then is for them to come into sufficiently close contact with a star, the sun.

Planets establishing orbits around the sun, according to relative speed and mass, means that some planets or moons will probably slam into one another, creating more moons or perhaps an asteroid belt like the one in our solar system. Remnants of the planets will then descend into the atmospheres of other planets, and contribute their mass and contents into their resources, like the comet that slammed into Jupiter in 1994.

Some of those resources may be water, as there are literally billions of comets, asteroids and particles well within our orbit alone, only a percentage would be necessary to contribute water and an atmosphere to a planet. Many asteroids and comets like Hale-Bopp contain water in the form of ice and/or gases, which is what makes the trails we see in the night sky.

It is inevitable given the number of stars and planets visible to us, that at least one will have the ingredients for life. Some equations such as the Drake Equation, calculate that as many as 5,000 planets within our galaxy alone contain intelligent life.

Life is the question now before us. Life exists on our planet even at the deepest levels of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean, eking out an existence from the volcanic vents present there, and as nearly transparent creatures with Bioluminescence that attracts food or warns away predators.

Nearly every corner of our planet supports life in one form or another whether it is plant, bacteria, airborne virus, spores, animal, or man. One need only take a sample of water from a pond and put it under a microscope to see a multitude of life present in its environs.

There is life today on our planet that is literally millions of years old yet virtually unchanged like crocodiles, alligators, tortoises, ferns, fungus, moss, mosquito's and many others. We know these species to be millions of years old because of something called the fossil record. The fossil record exists beneath the surface of the earth in most cases, although canyons, valleys and natural trenches sometimes leave these bones and imprints within shale and limestone visible on the sidewalls.

Archeologists, anthropologists and Paleontologists have worked out systems to help determine the ages of their finds. Over a period of many years, a calculation from known ages of artifacts in the recent past, in conjunction with the objects depth beneath the surface is extrapolated to accommodate further depths. This dating method, now called Stratigraphy, is still a remarkably accurate system.

Carbon 14 dating further refined calculations for age groups up to about 70,000 years old. How this works is through the known deterioration rate of the element Carbon 14. The less concentration of the element in the remains the older it is. Since Carbon 14 is present in everything there is no restriction on what can be tested.

Further advances in radiometric dating have advanced the testable ages back to 48.6 billion years according to the presence of elements such as strontium/rubidium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon and a few others. Differences in the concentrations of each pair of elements determine the ages extremely accurately.

Literally hundreds of millions of fossils reside in institutions around the world. There are clear differences found in any particular fossil traced back within its Stratigraphic column, or tested age. Every species of life found shows a clear advancement of complexity or change in appearance relative to its age.

There have been no fossils found in a mixed state, which means a specimen that has previously been found in the age group of 150 million years with certain characteristics, has not turned up in the age group of 10 million years in the same state of evolution. Sometimes a particular species doesn't turn up at all meaning it died out.

Tracing certain lizards, frogs, and salamanders from purely aquatic creatures, to amphibians, to land animals that can survive purely on land if necessary is a fact supported by evidence found through Stratigraphy and carbon dating.

Crocodiles are traced back to an animal named "Flesh Crocodile Emperor" an animal that grew to a length of 40 feet and weighed eight tons, which is twice as much as an elephant. These animals were capable of capturing and eating virtually anything on the planet. Modern crocodiles rarely exceed 14 feet and weigh no more than half a ton, although in look they have changed very little.

Science has stated with some degree of confidence that life on earth began with amino acids, mutating and merging to form ever more complex organisms. In lab experiments Amino Acids have been proven to merge with certain molecules found in water around volcanic vents, coupled with mineral contents present either in the water or surrounding rocks, and general levels of salinity; the acids changed through an application of electricity. These amino acids are generally the same, although can be mutated by sunlight and form separate solutions which interact and form new solutions. The same results are completely possible in nature with a shallow sea area, minerals, and a bolt of lightening effecting the change.

It would take hundreds of millions of years to produce complex life but this is not by any means impossible. Acids, bacteria, and viruses mutate and grow more complex everyday in our world now. Exposed to our immune system viruses and bacteria mutate and become more complex, as does our immune system in order to more effectively combat the strain of virus or bacteria that attacked it. In fact, one of the reasons there are so many different strains of Flu virus is because different people have different chemical make-ups. The same is true for the common cold; therefore, whether or not you wish to take into account a pre-determined outcome that God programmed into the universe, evolution is a fact.

However, man seems to have suddenly appeared on the scene from out of the blue. There is no physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution for man from animal. Although man does appear to have evolved into a more complex being, that is called "static" evolution and is separate from the general theory. This fits with Genesis 2:7, just as the description of the rest of the earth in vs. 2-6 fits the primordial vision of the earth in keeping with the evolutionary development of early life forms from amino acids. Mans creation is special; man was created with a soul, separate from the rest of creation, meaning man was created in the Image of God.

For creationists, the "big bang" fits very well with Genesis 1:1-5: “The earth was without form and void, darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters, and God said let there be light” (Paraphrased). "The deep" here probably refers to empty space, and "the face of the waters" is probably an extremely dense form of matter of which everything that came to be was compressed into; whenever "waters" are referred to in Scripture, and it is obvious that actual water is not meant, the meaning is usually masses of people. Since it is through the Holy Spirit that everything is accomplished this then would be a logical assertion, so then what it means in this context would have to be everything and everyone that would ever be (Ephesians 1:3-5). "Let there be light" would then be the "bang" portion.

Taken in this view then, there would be no problems so far. What people get hung up on is the assertion that there must be six literal days of creation, as stated in scripture. Which is true, there would have to be in order for Scripture to be true. I still see no problem, because there could have been six days of preparation by God before the release of the universe. Whether that was six literal twenty-four hour periods of our day, or six thousand years of our time as stated by II Peter 3:8 doesn't matter. What that statement means to convey to all who read it is that our God is capable of doing what we see around us in a very short period.

So then, what is the problem in stating that the actual creation of the universe was in the preparation of everything and everyone within a dense mass in the middle of nothing, containing within it the ingredients and movements for the entire universe from it's beginning to eternity? Isn't that a more miraculous statement to make; that the statement from God of "Let there be light" then set in motion everything from the "bang" through our present day and beyond, in even the most minuscule detail? If you take into account that the universe is still taking shape: stars are still forming and collapsing, planets are forming, gases and particles are coalescing, you could say that the universe itself is still evolving.

Just because science doesn't take God into consideration, doesn't mean that scientists don't recognize God for what He is and for what he has done. There are many good solid Christians within the scientific community. God is not an observable, measurable or testable force within our frame of reference. Therefore, science cannot include Him in the explanations of observable actions and reactions. Can He be included within the framework of what remains and has come into view of earth's ancient history? No, and this is not a bad thing.

Ending the search for answers with “God must have performed a miracle” would have severely impaired or virtually brought to a standstill our understanding of the earth. We would have no true appreciation for the beauty in the minuscule complexity of the cell, or in the mystery and impossible beauty of the universe. No appreciation of the simple, but complex mirrored relationships between the microcosm and macrocosm of our ecosystems; or the limited but lifesaving understanding of our own bodies. In other words, a true appreciation of the wonder, beauty, and perfection present in our universe from the molecular level to the galaxies and nebulas.

The scientific community cannot, nor strictly speaking should they, answer questions by saying "God did it" and leave it at that without further study and research. The Christian population cannot throw out scientific explanations for the events recorded on or in the earth, any more than they should the breakthroughs of science or the more general explanations offered for natural events such as gravity. Picking and choosing what theories to believe in is comparable to picking and choosing what Bible verses to believe in. Both lead to stunted knowledge and foolish ideas such as a flat earth or suicide cults.

Science and religion are not entirely separate studies; they are permanently joined even if some scientists would not have it that way. One person or group of people do not make God go away through their unbelief, any more than that person, or group of people's minds are changed by the assertion that God is. In fact, one could say that continued badgering by the Christian people upon unbelievers has the opposite effect.

It is this writer's opinion that the surest way to get someone to acknowledge God is to allow the unmolested study of His creation.