Ancient History

While the essence of DNA is important, the Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how DNA came into existence. Yes, DNA is a very important player in evolution, and knowing how it came to be is even more important, but not knowing how DNA came into existence says nothing about the validity of evolution itself. That was my point, really.

Here's an argument that creationists used against evolution: Humans and apes can't have a common ancestor because certain types of apes like gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46...

True true.BUT it does say something about evolution coming to existence and evolving with out help. (if you want to but it that way) evolution is the best theory of live coming to existence. But saying that somebody is stupid, just because he said:"maybe its wrong." is just retarded

That video pretty much nails it.

Yup... Maybe I've shouldn't included the video...

Evolution, as I stated earlier, doesn't involve itself with life coming into existence, but rather with how it developed into the life as we know it today. While DNA and genetics are used to explain parts of evolution, how DNA came into existence has little to no influence on the theory itself. And maybe it's just me, but I find a baseless and empty claim that something is wrong pretty stupid indeed.

Why? I found it a very interesting video, and very enjoyable to watch. The narrator also had a very calm voice, and everything was explained quite well.

The video explained the whole point...

Exactly, then why not include it?

It explained much more than I've intended...

Ah...still, great video, I must say.

It does have to do because The law of entropy prevents DNA coming to life randomly. It also means evolution with out help is unfeasible. No way is it possible to proof that evolution has come to this point randomly if we can't proof were did DNA come from.

Because the hole point of evolution is that nature has shaped animals with out god/gods.
This is going no were

You assume evolution tries to explain how life, and thus DNA, came into existence. But as far as I know, evolution only shows how life (and DNA, that both already exist, how they exist doesn't matter, though) gradually changes over very long periods of time. Therefore, evolution doesn't rule out the idea of creationism, as in life being created by a higher power. It does however contradict the creation story of the Bible.

No I don't. This debate is useless because we are discussing the definition of evolution...... As far I have been taught evolution does include how life came to be. No just how it evolves.

Evolution has tried to explain how life has begun, because cells living things. If you can say well humans came from apes. Fine. But were did DNA come from. As far I know evolution does also study how life began on the simplest cells.

I agree on the rest.

Evolution states how organism A evolves into organism B.

Not that I know much about the book as I have never read but I believe that in "On the Origin of Species" there is no hint as to the origin of life.

The discovery of DNA was first announced almost a century after the establishment of the theory and therefore the theory has little significant bearing on the origins of DNA and merely on how the variety of the hundreds of millions of species of animal and bacteria came to exist in the world today.

No to say we lost in the Vietnam War is absurd. We weren't involed in the war when South Vietnam was taken over. We weren't even in the war. It was a POLICE ACTION. We inflicted far greater casulties than we suffered. We never "lost" a battle.
Technically America never declared war on anyone in Vietnam, it was a "police action", so America technically never fought a war in the first place. Dejure though, it was a defeat as, despite not losing a single battle and inflicting far greater casualties than suffered, the US failed in its political objectives, namely the defense of South Vietnam.

South Vietnam lost the Vietnam War not the US. The Vietnam War was a civil war in which the US was a third party. North and South Vietnam had been at war with each other before the US entered the conflict and were at war with each other after the US left the conflict. To say the US lost the Vietnam War would be like saying the Soviet Union won the Vietnam War instead of saying North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. It was not our war to win or lose. The US should not be blamed for South Vietnam's shortcomings and lack of will. The US can give all the money and weapons to the South as it wants to, but the South has to have the will and desire to win and they did not have that. Therefore the loss is theirs, not ours.

---
It is widely considered that "America lost the Vietnam war." But (as previously explained) saying that America lost the war is a misstatement. It was misunderstood at the time of the war.

North Vietnam had indeed signed a peace agreement with the United States to leave South Vietnam and maintain a demilitarized zone, much as had been done in Korea. The North signed this agreement, waited until the United States had pulled almost all troops out of South Vietnam, and then attacked, and easily overtook the South. Did we win? We won on honesty and integrity, both of which the North Vietnamese failed to display once the power of the United States had left.

Although the US committed enormous resources and defeated the communists in tactical engagements time and again, there was a lack of will to do the things that have to be done to win a war: Go on the offensive, advance into enemy territory, seize the military initiative, and so forth. In Korea, the US advanced all the way through North Korea to China at one point, although it was later forced back. The communists worried that the US might do this again, so they had an incentive to keep the truce. In Vietnam, treaties were signed, but the fighting went on. Eventually, US public opinion tired of an endless, defensive war. Congress ordered an end to direct US military involvement in August 1973. US financial aid to South Vietnam was cut off in August 1974 and Saigon fell to the communists in April 1975.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_US_lose_the_Vietnam_War#ixzz1isvFzFV8
Don't just read the first answer.
As for the universites. That was last year. This year's
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html
US FOR THE WIN! 7:3

Due to the fact General feels it is 100% necessary to revert the argument back to the greatness of America.

To reply to the posts of our counterparts