If a lifeform's characteristics weren't suited for it's ever changing environment, then it would quickly perish altogether. If evolution didn't exist, then the "creator" controlling what characteristics a species should have to live would have to change them constantly himself, because life is competitive and the environment is not static.
The only reason this poll is majority against evolution is because the people who know its real arent going to waste their time anymore.
When i saw these results i just laughed im so done with this site.
YES. Evolution is real thats why you have a freaking appendix guys.
I am not a scientist, I do not purport to be one. I purport to be someone who listens to what people say and has a knack for filtering out what has the potential to be wrong. I know that when scientists predicted a specific kind of moth that lived on a secluded island using the theory of evolution, they found the kind of moth they predicted would be there.
I know that abiogenesis isn't yet completely proven, but that we have pieced together fair chunks of the path from those first micro-organisms to larger multi-cellular organisms like you & I. I am willing to accept that there is a creator responsible for the origination of life on earth. But I cannot accept that he deceived us with false evidence of evolution.
Of course it is true and those who don't believe it I need to remind you that this is 21st century. Back when Galileo discovered that the Earth travelled around the Sun he was silenced and many people disagreed with him. I think people will move on and accept it when the time comes. Of course people would have arguments against evolution. People will also have arguments against round Earth.
It just makes sense. How else did they get there? Science is something I just understand- and while I'm a Christian, science has proof, and so I simply incorporate it into what the bible says. Science is certainly not false. Small features here and there are incorrect. But evolution has too much proof to back it up. I'm one of those people who watch documentaries a lot. Here is one that says most of my proof (and it's not actually Darwin. It's the man who provided enough proof for Darwin to have the courage to suggest the theory of evolution, known simply as Alfred Russel Wallace.)
Watch it, and then tell me evolution is false.
Or don't. It's 59 minutes long. Feel free not to. But if you don't, you haven't done enough research to disprove evolution.
If by evolution you mean the courses taken by natural selection then by all means yes evolution is true, if you mean over millions of years one animal species can evolve into a compleatly different species and develop consciousness then definitely not!
Wear is the proof of any evolution in any recorded scientific document. Why is there no evolution observed? Or even provable?
And last but not least, any form of natural selection which is definitely incorporated into any evolution theory would not have produces a conscience. Because the rules of natural selection favor survival, not doing the right thing and treating others better than we treat ourselves.
It is quite clearly true, the exact mechanism isn't 200% nailed by science, but the general rule that things change from generation to generation is a given.
Reading some of the below No replies who worry about the random mutation part. Well yes that is a big player, but you are not the same as your mum or your dad, you are a combination of both and thus different. Sexual selection through mating is another evolutionary mechanism, and why it took a long time for cellular life to evolve into multi cellular life at the beginning.
Evolution also tends to make species more similar in highly competitive environments, such as that of a cheetah where speed is of the essence. Cheetahs have a low rate of diversity for that reason. However, if something happened that meant the cheetah had access to slower prey, the cheetah would become slower as it is not as important in its environment. This lack of selection pressure would produce something that is not remotely like a cheetah eventually. It was long assumed that it was high competition environments that yielded the gretest 'push' for evolution to occur. Darwin called it survival of the fittest. And he was right in all ways but 1. Speciation occurs when the 'fittest' is redefined. Can be a natural disaster, geological change, climate, extinction of another species etc.
Evolution in the macro sense = true
evolution as we currently understand it = not fully understood yet :-)
PS I'm a biologist, but I am on my phone so sorry for the grammar.
I am studying cellular biology and it all points to a single fact: evolution is impossible. In all my research I have seen nothing that even hints at the possibility of one species becoming another species entirely. If you look into cells, you discover they are full of even smaller things like enzymes, mitochondria, a nucleus. You discover things that cannot have happened by accident, things that all had to be perfect and all had to be there at the same time. If they were slightly out of balance, as evolution would suggest had to have happened, that living thing would've died.
Another point is that we all evolved from a single cell. Where did that single cell come from? Cells contain DNA, and where did that DNA come from? What DNA was it? Where did the phospholipids that make up the cell membrane come from? A cell must have those phospholipids or it will fall apart. How did that cell survive outside a living being?
A third point is that matter is not eternal, and matter cannot create matter. It can replicate it, but in order for replication to occur there must already be something there to copy. So where did matter come from? Logic and science both point towards this: an eternal, and therefore non-material, being that is not bound by the limits of time or matter, and therefore can always have existed. That being must've created matter from nothing. It is the only explanation.
I'm in a debate, right now, about this. My opponent told me that if someone ever found a fossil where it didn't belong, that would be proof that evolution is wrong. Well. The simple fact is that they have found such fossils. Not just a few, but entire fossil groups. One fossil has been found in three different geological layers, on three different continents. Many fossils have also been found in fossil layers that are earlier or later than where they were supposed to be found. Naturally, the supporters of evolution simply ignore these fossils. The geologic column is a joke. It does not conform to the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution would have to be wrong.
There simply is no evidence to support that a new species can arise from genetic mutations. Mutations have always been shown to be destructive to genetic information, and they are usually harmful or fatal to the mutated organism. The only times mutations have had a beneficial effect is when they have destroyed genetic information such that survival resulted from the lack of certain property. Perhaps the best example of this is when a mutated moths were unable to produce white pigment in their wings, and they survived because they were better camouflaged. However, in spite of countless attempts, mutations have never been shown to result in new genetic information that has been beneficial to a species.
Besides the total lack of evidence supporting the theory of evolution of species, science has no explanation for how such a process could have begun. Abiogenesis is the name given to the supposed process of life arising from non-living matter. At the current time, there are no widely accepted theories as far as a mechanism to explain how abiogenesis could have occurred, nor would any serious scientist dare to propose such a theory. It's simply considered too risky to delve into such a far-fetched area of "science."
The theory of evolution is so well entrenched that no one even bothers using scientific means to try to justify it. It's proven much more effective to use "evolangelists" such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet to win converts.
Evolution in a broad sense is the model which predicts everything is a result of purely natural drives and consequences.
In biology evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Focusing solely on the biological definition, evolution is driven by the "two-stroke engine" of beneficial mutations and natural selection.
Problems with mutations:
a. Mutations are random, not directed.
B. Mutations are rare, not common
c. Beneficial mutations are very very rare; arguably not existent
d. The net effect of all mutations is harmful
e. Mutations affect and are affected by many genes
The mechanisms of mutations and natural selection are inadequate for the task of driving evolution. Mutation is not a code, but a random phenomenon. Neither can it assimilate energy into a more highly organized form of the structure it affects. Natural selection is not a code which production of anything; it serves merely as a screen which sieves out unfit variants and defective mutants. Thus neither mutation nor natural selection is either a directing program or an energy converter.
Evolution is not true. How do I know? Because there has to be an answer some how, and just like we need water, we need love. And in the bible it says God is love. Where is there, one, proof of love in evolution, and two, not any love in the world. Even Satan has love. Yes it is for evil but its love. If someone didn't have love, they would sit and not do anything.