It simply states that over time, organisms with genes most suited to survival will be more likely to survive. Can you really disagree with that? If I'm a giraffe with a long neck, that will allow me to eat more leaves on a tree, and not starve, right? The second basis is that those organisms that have genes that help it survive will pass on those genes more frequently than organisms without them. Can you take issue with that? That same giraffe is more likely to live to reproduce and pass its own genes down than a giraffe with a shorter neck, that thus can't eat as many leaves. The last thing to agree with is that random mutations occur, which is not as easy to reason out, but is certainly true. Red hair, for example, is a mutation of blond.
I'd really like to see some real opposition to those statements.
The real reason that some people disagree with evolution is that it requires years and years to work to its extremes; to create new species. Microevolution, evolving within species, really can't be debated. We can see it ourselves (http://evolution.Berkeley.Edu/evolibrary/news/110301_pcbresistantcod) in just a few years. But the problem is this: If you think the earth was created by God, a god, or gods, sometime in the last 10,000 years, then you just shouldn't be starting on evolution in the first place. Evolution takes for granted that the earth was created 4+ billion years ago.
It's analogous to trying to understand trigonometry while still believing that the pythagorean theorem is false.
One does not "believe" in a scientific theory, one accepts it or one rejects it- or in the case of the very religious and evolution, denies it. Since science is based on observable, testable, verifiable evidence there is no "believe" about it.
Evolution is one of the most heavily supported theories we HAVE in science- more supported by hard evidence than gravitation actually. Unlike creationists want to claim, it is about far more than the fossil record. Every piece of evidence in every field of the biological sciences in the past two centuries has simply confirmed evolution's veracity.
Of course, most creationists have a straw man view of what evolution IS- they think it means a cow will magically give birth to a duck. The ACTUAL definition of evolution is the change in allelic frequencies of a population over time. That's it.
Evolution says that by superior genes being passed on more and more frequently, mutations and natural selection, creatures will become more fit for their environment, and over time more complex life forms will begin to appear. I have asked this question, because too many time I have seen people completely misrepresenting evolution. What I have said evolution is does not cover everything, but the principle of it. I get very annoyed when people think that evolution talks about the origins of everything, or even life. It doesn't, and I think I am going to cry.
The evolutionary theory is a term that is generally mistaken, Evolution is the changes in the structures, behaviours and ancestral backgrounds of each species. It is when variation occurs between a certain species of individuals and many factors can contribute to the change in them. Geographic isolation, gene mutation, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, fossil records, vestigial organs, comparative biochemistry and comparative DNA are all evidence that state the truth that evolution exist and that we all have ancestral forms that aren't as thy are now.
Bc all the facts, like it all leads up and for all the ppl that thinks its not real are like idiots bc how else would all of these complex creatures be on this earth right now? It because we evolved over time. Evolution dosnet have to be perfect, gusted enough
Birds change, whales change, people change, the earth changes, the galaxy changes, the universe changes. This can only be explained through evolution. Additionally, the evidence has been collected to show all of these changes happened and that the species and planetary bodies evolved for specific reasons that also have been proven.
Darwin looked at certain bird species in different parts of the Galapagos islands and saw how some birds ate nuts and seeds and others focused more upon beetles and other insects and over time their beaks changed to better suit their hunting style, we (in a worldwide biological sense) evolve to better suit our environments. A fish did adapt to breathe and walk on land, they are called amphibians. They still had to lay their eggs in water, over time as they went farther from their nesting place and developed harder eggs capable of being born on land. They had to gaurd their young to propegate their species, animals continued to evolve until they eventually were able to carry their young. Evolution occured as certain species found a specific way to capitalize on their environment.
Creationists argue that we were, of course, created. That cannot be proven by any means. Think about this: In the Bible, all of the Ten Commandments were based off of humans sinning. Now, in the beginning of the Bible it states that there will be NO sin as long as Adam and Eve do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge; yet they can eat of the Tree of Life. This makes very little sense. Adam and Eve sin in a world without sin due to a talking serpent. The tree was placed in plain reach of them in the middle of the Garden of Eden. It's like he tried to make them sin. Anyway, without the sin, there would be no death. Think of the way we are today. We can DIE. We were supposedly created to not die. But, here we are with trillions dead. We were designed by evolution to die. We are living longer and longer, though.
Now, for the kicker. We are STILL evolving. Wisdom teeth are a sign of evolution. Our mouths are not yet big enough to house them. Not to mention we can become immune to certain medications and illnesses. This is not a miracle of God. This is the miracle of evolving.
Simply put, we are basically Pokemon. We started off small, like an Eevee. That Eevee slowly evolved into an Umbreon, a Vaporeon, a Jolteon, a Flareon, an Espeon, a Leafeon, a Glaceon, or a Sylveon; Of course, they all evolve based on what environment they are in! Just. Like. Humans. Research shows that many different races that were evolved in certain areas of the world show slight differences such as, cheekbone height, eye color, skin color, even the way they speak!
Evolution says that all animals evolved from more primitive lifeforms. Evolution should not even be a debate subject. The theory of evolution has more evidence supporting it than the theory of gravity. If you don't understand evolution there is so much that you don't understand. Evolution explains almost everything in biology, if not everything.
I believe in evolution ...Of course not as an explaination of the origins of life, earth and the universe but I totally agree with the concept that things change and adapt to their surroundings. Half of why I am a Christian is because I am fascinated by science and interested in what we as man can discover about earth. Science (though awesome) is a bit subjective in my opinion. I would love to see it unbound by all preconceptions to see where it can really take us
This seems like a debate best left for evidence. Some say evolution is fact, so let's ask these guys:
I've read as many sources on evolution that favor the stance against God as I could find. None if them have convinced me. Since I haven't been convinced by anyone in the scientific community that evolution deserves my belief, I do not believe it. The articles I posted are just random articles I've found on the Internet that looked like they would be good reads for anyone who disagrees with me.
Evolution???? Please!! God created a rock to be a rock not to be a person or a people say "evolve" into a person the Bible talks all about creation and how it worked and evolution has no proof to say that the creation in the Bible was not so God is the ultimate creator
It's totally stupid to think that we humans were once these chimpanzees or apes.
My question to all of the Darwinists out there is: If your belief is true, then how come humans didn't develop into something more intelligent and physically different than us today?
I know that we are much more technologically advanced and more knowledgeable than the humans that existed 3,000 years ago for instance. But if we originated from Apes and Monkeys, then what will be the advanced stage for us? Perhaps being born without fathers as it is done in cloning?
This still doesn't prove that humans came from animals or vise versa. We are far more intelligent than animals. We co-existed with animals for thousands of years, and they have not changed a bit. In fact, many of them have already been extinct.
"God gives man the faculty of consciousness. Scientists still do not understand how consciousness comes about in human beings. For example, humans are conscious of their mental processes. Humans know that they exist, they have a 'spirit' "
Evolution on a micro-scale is verifiable and even observable on human time scales (beetles, birds...). The issue is with large scale changes (fish to mammals). Given the time scales needed and often cited by evolutionist, there should be all kinds of variations in the fossil record of incremental changes along the way, but there isn't. These 'missing links' are the thorn in the side of evolutionist and the theory because it leaves a gaping whole in the proof. To say that we evolved from slime and not have ANY proof of it ANYWHERE in the fossil record is a HUGE problem. This is why there is so much press anytime someone finds a "missing link" of human/ape evolution [which to-date, have all been found to be nothing but scientists fabricating evidence to ether prove the theory, advance their career or for fame]. Darwin himself pointed out that his whole theory would collapse if there was not enough evidence in the fossil record.
Scientists often accuse religious folk of imposing what they believe on reality. And there are times and with some individuals when this is the case. However, scientists suffer the same issue, being so biased toward an issue or outcome that any evidence to the contrary is rejected without consideration, true or not. Not to mention the role that politics/funding may have in their "belief".
To both sides I would say, don't let personal biases get in the way of good judgment and good science.
Christians do not have a "straw man" view of evolution, and 'cow giving birth to duck' is called the Hopeful Monster theory. Good try with Ad Hominem, though. Furthermore, saying evolution is just change in a species over time is true, but that's not the point of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution states that we started as amoebas, the became fish, then primates, then man/monkey hybrids (despite the lack of any transition states in the fossil record) then cavemen, the Homo Sapiens.
We were created by god and that much is true if we were evolved then who named the dinosaurs along time ago and if we did evolve then why are the paintings on the cave walls there during the dinosaur ages and why haven't we changed in 500 years cause if the evolution is real then how come we still have things around now that they are saying we came from
I had started reading Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Theory of Evolution, I also studied "Darwin on Mind, Morals, and Emotions" by Robert J. Richards. Subsequently I saw the full video series of Evolution (Part 1 to 7), Darwin's Dangerous Ideas by Daniel C Dennett and then I read Charles Darwin's biography to understand the "Evolution Theory". Later I saw full video on "How Evolution Tracks Truth" by Dr Paul Griffiths uploaded by University of California Television (UCTV).
Is widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related and it does not subscribe to the views that God created all human beings and other creatures and plants. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we have made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
It is a scientific theory, so it has a lot to back it up, but I need it to be a foolproof fact. (I know that a theory is not a hypothesis. Please argue kindly.) There are a lot more reasons, but I don't have time to list them all.
A scientific method is observable and repeatable and therefore if evolution is an unmistakable fact these two factors must be available. The two main things that evolution must have to be possible is the "scientific method" of life from non-life and change of kind. If were really honest one must ask, can we observe and repeat life form non-life? Has a change of kind been observed before? To be honest in the evolutionary worldview the answers both must be no because abiogenesis (life from non-life) can only happen once. A change of ind also needs, as all evolutionists must say, millions or billions of years. For one to call this science must make one not know what science is.
I do not believe this because I am a Christian and believe God put us here on this Earth, not evolution. If you are a fellow believer of God, then you should agree with me because at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis, it talks about the world being made and God putting us on this Earth.