Micro evolution is observable in out every day lives. Obviously, if micro evolution occurs, then macro evolution has to occur, because all macro evolution is, is micro evolution over a long period of time.The only opponents of evolution, are religious people. The same people that believe a God that there is no evidence that existed, spontaneously created humans for no reason whatsoever.
I'm a scientist and even if not a biologist myself, I believe in the scientific method. The theory of evolution (like all the scientific theories) does not pretend to be absolute truth, but a working hypothesis, to be corroborated or disproved or improved by evidence. Currently all proves from genetic, palaeontology and other disciplines makes us think that evolution is a reasonable assumption. I want also to point out that only the more bigot Christians refuse to accept evolution, while all the priests I know believe that evolution is true.
Contrary to creationist claims, there have been transitional fossils found. To ignore that ignores the Homo antecessor fossil found in 1997, and the 275 neantherthal fossils found in Europe and Asia. In fact, some transitional creatures might not even leave fossils at all. Also contrary to creationist claims, Darwin did not say that his theory is absurd. In fact, they cut the quote short (cherry picking), the full quote is "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." -Charles Darwin. Fishes cannot come to land and directly turn into humans, and evolution does not say that. They evolve through many generations and does not just "turn" into a human. As you can see, many arguments against evolution is from simply criticizing it before even knowing what it is all about.
Contrary to creationist claims, there have been transitional fossils found. To ignore that ignores the Homo antecessor fossil found in 1997, and the 275 neantherthal fossils found in Europe and Asia. In fact, some transitional creatures might not even leave fossils at all. Also contrary to creationist claims, Darwin did not say that his theory is absurd. In fact, they cut the quote short (cherry picking), the full quote is
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." -Charles Darwin.
Fishes cannot come to land and directly turn into humans, and evolution does not say that. They evolve through many generations and does not just "turn" into a human.
As you can see, many arguments against evolution is from simply criticizing it before even knowing what it is all about.
Solely the fact that mankind is able to breed animals and can make them have specific attributes shows how simple evolution is - and most importantly clarifies that it isn't just a theory of some crazy scientists. Breeding animals or vegetables is a case of profiting from mutations, which would definately underline the justification of a theory of evolution.
First off, we have fossil finds like, Ida, Tiktaalik, Juranveantor (however you spell it), Homo Erectus, Homo habilis, etc
Second, the tests of Diane Dodd and Richard Lenski. For Dodd, she experimented with two populations of fruit flies. She gave on Maltose, and one Starch. After 8 generations, both populations came out with new species that couldn't interbreed. As for Lenski, he has an ongoing test with E.coli and the bacteria have gone under some changes, pointing to evolution
Third. The genetic evidence. 1) The collision at Human Chromosome 2. I think most of us have heard this one 2) 96% of our DNA is shared with chimps, 50 with fruit flies, and 26 with weeds
Fourth. Anatomy. On, vestigial structures. Vestigial structures point to evolution, since they have lost their use and an designer wouldn't put this in.
Some vestigial Structures include: Goosebumps, appendix, wisdom teeth, and even though it's not a structure, but it deserves mentioning, hiccups.
Fifth and Last. Good mutations. Some include: cssr-32, lactose tolerance, and increased bone density.
Palaeontologists have found fossil evidence showing how current flora and fauna have evolved over long periods of time. Evidence shows that evolution is occurring even now (e.g., antibiotic resistance of bacteria).
With the proven facts that some animals have evolved from water to land and from air to land shows that the evolution theory is possible. While scientist are not always right and facts are sometimes disproven, we cannot exclude this theory in our options. People often have a hard time accepting science because of religion. Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe in God. Yet, no matter what, whomever you call God you cannot just put aside the scientific facts we have been given. With all that in mind, it is also impossible for scientists to put aside the possibility of a higher being. Until they can completely prove how the beings we have evolved from were formed in the first place, they cannot dispute the possibility as we should not dispute the possibility of evolution.
The theory of evolution is not only backed up by our understanding of biology, but by our understanding of geology and chemistry. To say that evolution is not well evidenced is to dismiss almost 150 years of research -- not only into biology but geology and chemistry as well -- in favor of the opinions of people with no credibility or knowledge of the field. If the alternative were at least another possible hypothesis rather than religious dogma, i might be more skeptical, but seeing as the only reason i've found that people deny evolution is because it upsets their preconceived notions, i see no reason to discredit it.
First let me say Evolution has more than likely a theory that is true, but will be extremely hard to prove with hard evidence like many Creationist want. But, at the same time, it is much more plausible for Evolution to be proved before Creationism. This is because there is no possible way for someone to prove the existence of "God" unless he/she comes themselves out. Now, evolution on the other hand is much more possible to show. For example, the evolution of Homo Sapiens. This evolution that we have gone through is fairly young, Homo Sapiens have not yet been around for 500 thousand years. While the genus Homo has been around since about 2.25 mya. (Million Years Ago) Beginning with Homo Habilus, but the evolutionary timeline for humans goes all the way back to Sahalenthropus Tchadensis, about 6.75 to 7 mya. All the Australopithecines, Ardipthiecins, and Homo species between can if put together show gradual changes in the robustness and physical features that will in turn lead to Homo Sapiens. There has also been many DNA and genetic linkages found to back the physical similarities found as well.
Now, i have read many of those who doubt evolution, and this has nothing to do with faith or belief, it has to do with fact and evidence. Also those who study evolution use Darwin as merely the first to give his theory out, it has now been changed due to its flaws, and is much more plausible. Another side note i feel i must address is the idea we came from apes and fish. Yes, chances are we did, but not in the manner in which many of you may believe. Our evolution diversion from monkeys came Millions of years before Sahalenthropus Tchadensis. He, most likely would have been the dividing factor of Humans and Apes. Apes being chimps, gorillas, orangutan, and Gibbons. So, we are far off from Apes but did have a common ancestor 7 million years ago. Now to move to fish, what most likely would have happened is a fish would have slowly adapted the ability to breath on land becoming the first amphibian, which would lead to reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, mammals etc. But this being hundreds of millions of years ago.
So, i hope this can help not convince anyone to convert to the belief of evolution, but see how many of those who believe in it have such a hard core belief.
I myself am Deist meaning i believe in a God that created the world and made the perfect circumstances to allow evolution to take place, Deism is a religion based on ones personal beliefs, so i have no ties and disregard the bible and Christianity. I was raised in a very Christian home, so i do know much about the beliefs and the holes in the religion, but all beliefs will have holes and this is what we need to realize, there CAN BE a balanced belief of religion and evolution.
Too often, evidence for microevolution from parent species is passed off as evidence for macroevolution and a common ancestor. We can see species adapt to their environments today and become varieties of the types God made them, we have never seen the macroevolution which is taken on pure faith by atheists.
Furthermore, the fossil record does not support phyletic gradualism as originally theorized by Darwin under the precepts of Uniformitarianism. In other words, there is no steady, gradual evolution in the fossil record. Rather what we see is steady microevolution with no major transitional forms, and then sudden appearance of brand new species as though created. This has led to the reigning theory on evolution, replacing Darwin's original, what is called as Punctuated Equilibrium, or punk eek as some call it. Essentially evolutionists acknowledged the fossil record couldn't defend evolution in its present form, so they made an unevidenced theory claiming evolution went very slow for long periods then suddenly sped up over short time periods, too fast to be witnessed in the fossil record. Way to write off all the evidence and make a theory that contradicts the facts, guys.
Increased hominid discoveries contradict conventional evolutionary theory, showing instead that previously alleged missing links like Homo erectus and habilis coexisted, and thus couldn't have evolved from one another. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica's current dating of Australopiths, Ar. Kaddaba and Ar. Ramidus coexisted; A. Afarensis, K. Platyops, A. Bahrelgazali, and A. Africanus all coexisted; P. Aethiopicus, A. Africanus, A. Garhi, H. Habilis, and H. Rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. Sediba, P. Boisei, H. Rudolfensis, and H. Habilis all coexisted. A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which couldn't have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'.
Furthermore, genetic evidence has been examined inadequately and dishonestly. What's rarely mentioned is that humans are more genetically similar to mice than apes, but I'm unaware of evolutionists claiming evolution from apes into mice into men. Furthermore, running BLAST searches on the FOXP2 chimpanzee protein claimed as evidence for evolution shows other species are more similar to chimpanzees than humans are, like rabbits and cattle. Unfortunately they're just selectively examining only humans and apes, not other genera, and thus only getting the results they want.
As observed by the Brothers Winn, "They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. We’ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while they’ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, they’ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing link, to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years."
This is ludicrous, how could a fish come onto land? If you read Darwin's works he admitted that the theory he dreamt up in his imagination has so many holes in it that its crazy. Darwin himself admitted these things. The claims of evolutionists are simply not explained by the evidence. In fact most scientists completely reject the theory of evolutions since there are too many holes in it.
No not really because its just a theory its just what people believe and they happen to have proof, well big deal. The very reason you are who you are today is proof enough that something out their knows what their doing. Atheists always say they have this proof thats theirs no God and they think they do, but if they had anything faith at all to even consider believing in God for a minute then I believe he would become real to them, so real their world would be turned upside down. So theirs proof enough, the next time you say theirs no proof think differently.
I personally don't feel that evolution has any validity whatsoever. If it were true, and humans evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes? I have never once went into a zoo and spotted a half monkey, half man, which you would undoubtedly see if evolution were to occur, since it is supposedly a gradual occurrence. A half breed would have to exist. Unless you also believe in Bigfoot, that half breed has never been seen.
The earth's maximum age limit according to our magnetic field is 10,000 years; if the earth was as old as evolutionists say, we wouldn't have a magnetic field left.
Another indicator of a young earth is natural gas. Natural gas is contained underground and is under pressure; the ground could only contain this gas for about 10,000 years. Besides that, it is generally believed that the earth and moon were formed at the same time. If this happened four to five billion years ago like the evolutionists say, then dust particles that come from space would have made the moon's ground 182 feet thick in dust alone (this was the reason for equipping the lunar shuttle with such huge landing pads), and this is not the case. Furthermore, because of the gravitational forces of the sun and moon, the earth's rotation is slowing down, and if it were as old as the evolutionists say, it would have stopped dead in space years ago. Besides this, the moon is receding from the earth every year, and according to the evolutionary theory, should be much farther away. (Huse 1983: 7-32).
and much more
Evolution has NEVER been observed and transitional fossils have NEVER been found. Even the godfather of evolution, Charles Darwin himself, admitted several fallacies regarding his OWN theory: in regards to the eye having been formed by natural selection, he stated, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree;" in regards to fossil evidence, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" and then further states that such a lack of this type of evidence negates the theory, "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection."
The replication of DNA is such an intricate activity that it could not have happened by chance. If one of the dozens of factors was not present the process would stop and the creature would die. If you can envision such complexity happening spontaneously and simultaneously let us know how.
Evolution of the species and the lack of belief in it does not automatically mean that the person must be a creationist. It may mean that the wholesale adoption of evolution has not been supported by indisputable scientific fact. Evolution remains only one explanation there are others. It is the job of the scientist to look at a problem and through scientific experimentation either prove or disprove its validity. To much of Darwinian theory is accepted on face value only.
I'm not going to debate here cause this problem had turned up to be extremely raveling. Maybe someday you will believe in God existence and then, you can understand. Not everything can be proven by scientific research and if I am about to bring up the real story of human's timeline, all of you will question more about each and every detail. I guarantee, even you are the most extremist or the bastion of science oriented problem solving, someday, you will find something wrong of your assumption about the theory. Btw, I am not the person who reject the whole theory. Part of it can be accepted such as the species adaptation towards new surrounding. It is just not right to assume that human can come from the same ancestor with chimpanzee.
-I'm a muslim-
Can you really prove evolution with fossils? Just because the bones of a few animals look similar does not mean that they evolved into each other. Similar bone structure between animals might raise the question of evolution but you still need proof. There have been cases where the age of fossils in a sequence disproved the sequence itself. Scientists then had to revise the sequence. Doesn't this show that fossils sequences are theoretical in nature? How can you prove something with theory and speculation?