Does the theory of evolution have any substantial validity to it? |
I agree because there are a lot of scientific evidences which support the theory of evolution.
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.
Posted by: WeirdCodyThere were transitional fossils found
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.
Posted by: AnonymousDuh
This isn't an argument really, but a measure of how educated people are. Evolution is not a debate among the educated and the scientifically literate. Those who say "just a theory" simply demonstrate that they don't understand the word. Anyone who has gotten a flu shot has tacitly admitted that they believe in evolution (how do you think the shot is developed?) Furthermore, the entire field of genetics comes from evolution. The entirety of the scientific community accepts it, and have made it clear time and again. Opinion? No. Fact? Yes.
Posted by: LeTheodoteEvolution is observable.
While arguments against evolution are almost all misconceptions or false statements, evolution is observable. In labs, bacteria adapt to chemicals added to their environments. The changes are observable because of how rapidly bacteria reproduce.
Saying things like "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" or "most scientists reject evolution" is beyond ridiculous. I've also come across statements that question why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them and why no monkeys give birth to humans. The answer is that we did not come from monkeys but we did share a common ancestor. For people who actually want to educate themselves, the information is available everywhere.
Most scientists rejecting evolution is hilarious, because even most religious people accept evolution. Creationists are the only people truly against evolution. And you can't fight faith with fact, because they will totally ignore evolution even as it continues to happen all around them.Posted by: TwistedLocusEvolution has been backed up by a ridiculous amount of proof.
One of the most frustrating claims to "disprove" evolution is that it is just a theory. A scientific theory is different from a hypothesis and a hunch, it is backed up with evidence. Everything in science is a theory as it is open to be dis-proven. Evolution does explain the Cambrian Explosion, it's called adaptive radiation. Humans are no different from any other animals either, we are simply more intelligent, but we are by far not the most evolved out there, if that even means anything. Most creationists want a video recording of life starting as bacteria and evolving into humans, unfortunately that's not going to happen and it's amazing that we even have the fossils that we do. Evolution is supported by so much evidence that unwillingness to understand it now essentially means you will never understand it. Do not ever say that it is "just a theory" for it is the most ignorant and illogical argument possible.
Posted by: AnonymousEvidence, data and the scientific method.
Most people who see the theory of evolution as a valid theory do not outright reject the idea of god and certainly don't state that it disproves god as it does no such thing. To say that evolution disproves god is in fact extremely un-scientific as there is no data supporting this argument. Although I have never seen any evidence I believe proves the existance of god I have also never seen any that disproves it. So can the people out there who get so worked up over evolution being "blashemy" or something similar just calm down and look at evolution for what it is. The theory that fits all the data better than any other.
Posted by: AnonymousMonkey see, monkey agree
There is so much physical and observable evidence, you would have to be 'delusional' to ignore it. Remember, there has not yet been a fossil out of place. And even without fossils DNA is proof that evolution is true. We are not saying that we know how life originated, we are saying that from what we can 'SEE' it appears that all life can change and adapt to living conditions over vast periods of time. Also, we have seen microbes evolve and devolve based on controlled conditions in the lab, ah ha! It's pointless ignoring it because you have other beliefs, you might as well just ignore reality. Oh and to the fellow who is talking about Darwin not being able to explain the evolution of the eye, "Things have moved on, we have covered this, it's 2013 now, and we know how the eye evolved." Darwin was exceptional for his time and for a long time afterwards. I love him, there I said it. But harking back on his work won't disprove anything. Science has exploded into action since that time. We know so much more.
Posted by: AnonymousSigh
I weep for humanity
--->Posted by: ObiWanI believe that the theory of evolution has significant validity, as is evidenced by examples of how different species have adapted and changed as a result of living in different areas.
We can clearly see how a number of different species have evolved to promote the most useful characteristics for their surroundings. We have examples of everything from birds to squirrels that show us how the exact same species can evolve to adapt to different circumstances. Likewise, we can see how even humans have evolved in our relatively short existence - just compare the short and stooped skeletons of early man to the average build and height of modern man.
Posted by: ToughEfrain26The theory of evolution does have substantial validity to it.
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.
Posted by: w00tboycomicTo the people in the NO column
Evidence to prove evolution does not automatically disprove God. It supports evolution and simply that. DNA evidence can not be denied simply because you believe in a higher being. Evolution is so while understood that it is able to be traced and in some cases predicted. If we can predict how certain trait will follow a species are you saying we can predict Gods actions? Just saying that the belief in evolution and the disbelief in God do not need to go hand in hand.
Posted by: AnonymousThe theory of evolution has substantial validity rooted in scientific evidence.
The theory of evolution provides rational and empirical observations of the state of life on Earth. This theory states, at its most basic level, that life on Earth has not always been like it is now.
Contrary to popular belief, the acceptance of evolution as a mainstream theory is not inherently atheistic; it does not rule out the role of a Creator, nor does it address from where life originated, so it is entirely compatible with the idea of God and religion. Evolution, at its core, says that life has evolved from simpler states, and the fossil record and traits of all life on Earth, current and extinct, supports this theory.Posted by: AwfulWestonIf Americans came from Britain, why are there still British people?
Evolution is science, it is supported by mountains of evidence including the fossil record and DNA evidence. It has been applied in many fields including medicine and agriculture and has produced consistent results that are benefiting humanity. Creationism, on the other hand, has no supporting evidence and its only benefit is that it makes ignorant people feel good about themselves.
Posted by: PazuOf course.
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.
Posted by: slydessertfoxThe theory of evolution has too much scientific evidence that is far too valid to ignore.
I agree that there is validity to the theory of evolution. There has been so much scientific research done on evolution over the years that I believe it is impossible to ignore it. We can see the evolution of many species from this research. I believe that it is possible to believe in evolution and creation both. It was a miracle, now matter how it happened.
Posted by: R0d0Ferdy@SneakyLucius
We came from a common ancestor, so they won't just disappear... Your opinion is based on a lack of understanding
Posted by: 16kadamsBreeding Animals/Vegetables
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.
Posted by: OelfrachterI agree with the theory of evolution since science has showed that it exists.
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).
Posted by: Chang11Of course!
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.Posted by: AnonymousDNA evidence can be traced back to show the fact that all organisms share common ancestors.
No competing theory has been advanced with factual supporting evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and includes fossils, as well as living organisms. Evolution in the form of natural selection can easily be manipulated by humans in the form of artificial selection and forms the basis for the kind of diversification in species seen in canines and many other organisms.
Posted by: eclair910Yes
There are mountains of evidence. From fossils, bacteria, etc. honestly, nobody can deny evolution while providing evidence. @Snakylucius Seriously? Again, If American came from Britain, why are there still British people? Honestly, you make no sense. And no, stop saying Christianity is not compatible with evolution because it perfectly is compatible.
Posted by: 1dustpeltYes
We got all of the evidence on our side.
Posted by: DeathbeforedishonourI believe that Darwin's theory has had a great impact on the world today.
It has caused many debates between religious authorities and those from the scientific community. This theory had prompted individuals to think about the origin of the universe, earth, and how life really began. However, what distinguishes Charles Darwin from the others is the fact that he collected and provided substantial evidences, and he related various branches of science such as geology, botany and biology, which helped validate his theories.
Posted by: SGuthrieI support the fact of evolution because it can be observed in nature and tested by the scientific method.
The scientific community, who observe, test, and make conclusions based on empirical evidence, provide lots of support for the idea of evolution. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" explains it, and demonstrates how evolution can be observed in nature.
Posted by: AcousticRick50Yes
There are mountains of evidence backing up macro and micro evolution which ranges from bacterial resistance to drugs and evidence from fossils, and anyone who doesnt believe in evolution is probably an idiot. A wiseman once said that it is ridiculous that creationism is still around, and that was said by Woodrow Wilson back in 1912, and its still sad that so many people still buy into the stupidity of creationism, all of them you can find right over there ----------->
Posted by: imabenchThere is clear evidence that animals and plants have evolved according to the this theory.
There is ample amounts of evidence available that shows that the theory of evolution is a true theory. Plants and animals clearly do adapt on a genetic level to their environment and to other factors. Whether or not the theory of evolution explains the origins of man is still something that hasn't been sufficiently proven.
Posted by: MariaRI support Evolution
There's proof and logical arguements to the evolution of species. It's obvious that all who've opposed evolution have a lack of understanding. No logical arguments have concluded from fish, apes, nor anything else for that matter, it just states that everything changes to better suit the condition which it must live in.
For example, we didn't always have heaters. We started with fire, but technology advances allowed us to come up with a more effective way to combat the cold conditions. Fireplaces however are still effective and beneficial, which is why they are rare, but still in use. Similarly with monkeys and apes, just because you think we came from monkeys and apes does not mean apes and monkeys must go extinct, they still can live where they're able to survive.
As for the explanation of fish, you've been reading too much Wikipedia @Matt, or your friend who fed you such rubbish has been. What says we couldn't have come from fish? Do frogs not start off as "fish" so to speak? What if a fish needed to reach the rich vegetation of the banks of the river? Here's a list:
1st Generation: Ate the extended roots from shore plants
2nd Generation: Developed Teeth for tougher vegetation roots
3rd Generation: Survived out of water for short periods of time (Just as we can survive underwater for short periods of time)
4th Generation: Developed something crossed between lungs and gills to stay out of water even longer.
5th Generation: Fins split for easier navigation on land
The process continues for centuries, and the first generation dies because they cannot reach the vegetation before the 5th generation does. Is it hard to follow?
Let's go to a more modern and easy to see evolutionary stage. Naturally, trees must have water and sunlight to survive. However, even a child can see that trees come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes. It's very simple, a tree has many seeds, of all the seedlings, one tree is capable of growing taller than its parent; thus, this tree gets more sunlight, and the others die because our tall tree has been hogging all the sunlight. So our tall tree then releases a lot of seeds which also become tall trees, and of those tall trees, one tree is even taller than the rest. You get it? In a conquest to fight for sunlight, trees continuously fight for more sunlight than its neighbor.
With such a logical arguement, imbeciles won't be able to argue. If there's a cross arguement capable of beating mine, I'd like to hear it.Posted by: weilunt0219I believe that the theory of evolution does have substantial validity to it, because we can trace the evolution and adaptation of animals to their environment.
I do not believe that man evolved from apes, but I do believe we evolved alongside them. It is possible through fossil evidence, as well as genetic evidence, to track the evolution of a species. Animals and plants both evolve to fit their environment. For example, there are cave creatures that have lost their eyes because, living deep in caves, eyes were not needed and, therefore, over time, became vestigial, until they were missing entirely. This is a perfect example of evolution at work, because the unneeded feature was, over time, removed. This can also work in the opposite fashion where, what had been a flipper, can evolve into a leg and foot.
Posted by: QuarrelsomeAlbert70Evolution has enough evidence supporting it that there is no longer reasonable doubt.
In 150 years, not a single shred of evidence has been uncovered that contradicts it - it is overwhelmingly likely to be factual, to the degree that almost all scientists consider it such.
Posted by: AnonymousThere were transitional fossils found.
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.Posted by: jh1234l"If evolution were valid, there would be no monkeys"...... No. that is not how it works.
We did not descend directly from apes, but rather both descended from a common ancestor. Evolution is a slow process, brought about by random mutations that are classified as fatal, neutral, or beneficial. Most mutations are fatal, but if the mutation is neutral of beneficial, and the organism lives long enough to reproduce, then the mutated gene will be passed on the the next generations gene pool, and all ancestors of that one original mutant will carry that mutated gene.
If the mutations continue past the original mutant, then it is possible for a new species to arise from this one original mutated organism.Posted by: thecomingstormEvolution is observable and observed - those who don't believe it usually don't understand it.
Evolution is not "Just a theory"; those who say "Just a theory" have no understanding of what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is something which fits all current evidence and serves as the best possible explanation available to us. Gravity is "just a theory" in the same way evolution is "just a theory" - we see evidence everywhere, we regularly test it, and it comes up positive. The common cold is one of the most obvious reasons Evolution is clearly fact - it mutates at such a rate that it is incurable. It evolves. There are bacteria in dishes in almost every biologist's lab that evolve weekly. There are super-illnesses in hospitals caused by bacterial evolution and adaptation to antibiotics. There are selectively bred species by humans; there are fossil records and there are changes we see in a century to more advanced species. It's not a question of Evolution having any substantial validity - all the evidence is overwhelming - it's a question of any other theory having more validity. Currently the answer to that question is "No".
Posted by: DuaneAirWow.
At MattDescopa: That's not even remotely true regarding the theory, both when it comes to how you describe it, and what you say about what Darwin wrote. If you actually read Darwin's works (which you seem to be implying you did), you would know what evolution is.
At SneakyLucius76: I weep for humanity. That's like asking, "Because the United States broke off from England, why do we still have England?" That's dumb and you should be ashamed of yourself.Posted by: adontimasuIt is completely valid and supported by empirical evidence.
There is no valid claim against evolution and it is a theory only because it happens over time. It's a theory like gravity - try disproving it without magical thinking (which is the argument of the anti-evolution creationists - a magic man did it!). We have all the empirical evidence to back evolution, and none to refute it. We see it at work in evolving, mutating viruses after all.
Posted by: Th4FireEvolution is a FACT
Evolution is scientific fact, there is tons of evidence and examples, all you need to do is look, its not up to debate. For example Elephants are evolving right now to not have large tusks because the elephants with big tusks are being killed so the ones with smaller tusks are mating and producing elephants with small tusks.
Posted by: harrysmith.5686The theory of evolution explains many of the changes and alterations seen in nature, and it can be observed changing animals and plants decade by decade even now.
If the theory of evolution was ever in question, our current advances in DNA testing should dispel that question. The difference between orangutan DNA and human DNA is only 2%. If we reject the possibility of evolution we must accept that this is mere coincidence; this is very unlikely.
We have seen how nature (by means of natural selection, i.e., evolution) has filled all the needed niches even in isolated places such as New Zealand and New Guinea. Species develop special abilities, change their physical appearance and even their dietary requirements over generations, much as Darwin posited in his "Origin of Species."
It is doubtful that many in the scientific or academic communities are questioning the viability of the theory of evolution.
It would seem that the only challenge comes from religion, and not from all religions. Mendel, an Augustinian Monk, experimented for many years observing the genetic characteristics of pea plants. His work provided the underpinnings of modern genetics. Modern genetics is very much providing an "under pinning" for the theory of evolution.Posted by: CI3Iike
Essential scientific weaknesses of evolution theories
Origin of life weaknesses: the extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems. the high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place. no known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in rna and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems. all natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules. photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed! there is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information. Fossil record weaknesses: the cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures. many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes. most major proposed transitional forms are problematic and controversial. Rarely does the whole organism fit into the proposed developmental path. For example, birds are often said to have transitioned from reptile- hipped dinosaurs like velociraptor. But these have a different kind of hip structure than birds. Birds have the same kind of hip structure as the dinosaurs like stegosaurus and the horned dinosaurs. Presently observed nature weaknesses: selective breeding has produced only very limited change with no new structures occurring over thousands of years and multitudes of generations of selection. This clearly demonstrates that there are natural limits to biological change. Examples: dogs, cattle, pigeons . induced mutations followed by selection in laboratory experiments have not produced any beneficial structural changes. most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial. small changes resulting from natural selection are observed, but are not observed to accumulate to produce structural changes. it is extremely difficult for scientists to propose in detail how the structural or biochemical systems of life could change from a more simple form that was functional.
Posted by: AnonymousEvolution proposes that we came from fish
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.
Posted by: MattDescopaTheir is more proof for God than their is for science
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.
Posted by: AnonymousIf evolution were valid, there would be no monkeys.
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.
Posted by: SneakyLucius76Fossils?
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?
Posted by: Anonymousno it is not
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
http://www.emjc3.com/evolution.htmPosted by: AnonymousI want PROOF not equivocal evidence
Well, your claim of what the creationists claim is wrong. You say "Contrary to creationist claims, there have been transitional fossils found." I know of no educated creationist that says this, rather there are many who claim "there are no unequivocal transitional fossils found" which is the truth. Remember that no complete bodies of any of our supposed evolutionary ancestors have been found and the fact scientists have lied in the past about certain "evidence", especially regarding the fossil record, makes me skeptical of any evidence they acquire in support of evolution. My question would be "What unequivocal evidence do you have that PROVES evolution, not just supports it?" In a court case, a prosecutor may have substantial amounts of evidence that makes the defendant seem guilty but it is the PROOF that makes one guilty/not guilty. If someone would take the theory of evolution to an unbiased jury, it would lose based on "reasonable doubt"
Posted by: AnonymousIt takes MORE faith to believe in evolution than in an intelligent Creator.
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."
Posted by: SickkYes
i dont care if u dont believe in God! ull believe in him soon enough when u burn in Hell after u die! So there!
Posted by: AnonymousIt Goes Against Science
A few reasons I say what I do, it's never been observed. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There are no transitional fossils. It's only a theory and has never been proven with solid facts. It claims that life originated and evolution proceeds by chance. [which goes against natural selection. (selection is not by chance.)] that and you must always have evidence to support your statements. Which they rarely do. (good scientists all ways offer evidence for their statements.)
Posted by: AnonymousIt takes MORE faith to believe in evolution than in an intelligent Creator
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."
Posted by: AnonymousEvolution is only one section of a much bigger puzzle
There is a great rift between the scientific definition of evolution and pop culture references to evolution. Pop culture thinks evolution explains things like abiogenesis and the cambrian explosion when science claims no such thing. Pop culture also thinks evolution and religion are at odds. This would be a shock to many of the religious people who study evolution.
Posted by: AnonymousTo: Anonymous - "First off, we have..."
Scientists are actually starting to believe that the appendix is not useless (http://www.livescience.com/10571-appendix-fact-promising.html). The same might be said in the future about other "vestigial structures". The same was said about "junk" DNA which actually turned out to be useful. We simply may not understand enough about the human body to declare certain parts "useless". Science makes mistakes all the time because it relies on human understanding. The idea that a designer would not put in a vestigial structure is your own opinion / philosophy about the nature of the designer. I'm not sure why you mentioned that since it doesn't seem relevant. A person being able to drink milk does not prove that an animal can turn into a different type of animal. You need proof of evolution on a big scale such as an animal evolving a whole new body part or something on par with observing the act. Otherwise, you get into educated guesses and speculation.
Posted by: L_is