As a religious person, I have no trouble accepting Evolution (neither did Darwin). The fossil record, the genetic research and confirmation, the tangible benefits in medicine are all an acknowledgment of the reality of evolution. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree that this disproves God, after all, the 'proof' of evolution we used in college was 'artificial selection' a concept that cleanly leave stye door open for other forms of artificiality.
Additionally, God makes the claiming scripture that he wants us to be more like him. That means he is going to have used processes that are understandable and teachable. It should come as no shock that our growing body of knowledge is producing processes in Creation. The warning God gave us, however, is not one of just knowledge (and thus power) but the wisdom to use it properly.
Evolution has given us the ability to remove certain genetic disorders, for example, and give us healthier more full lives.
Evolution has also given us the ability to build a master race of genetically superior and modified individuals. Now that, would be an unwise use the knowledge would it not?
We should not fear knowledge, but we SHOULD accept the validity and importance of wisdom.
I've spent years debating evolutionists. I have yet to see any solid evidence that backs up it's claim that one species can evolve into another, different species. Actually, the word I should be using is 'kind'. All cats, dogs, horses...Etc are different kinds of life. There is really no evidence, at all, for this theory and genetic research has shown that it is impossible for such a thing to occur. You can read more about this here. http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/
I do support evolution and i do think that is evidence for animal evolution, but i don't see any evidence for microscopic evolution, but again i do believe in evolution, even if theres no evidence for microscopic evolution, because if animals evolve so does microscopic creatures, 4 more words needed haha
Evolution is the religion of Atheists. It is entirely deduced from the fauly premise "there is no God so complex life must have 'evolved', from basic life."
The more i debate evolutionists, the more convinced i am that the emperor has no clothes. Even high priest Dawkins cannot describe a single way for the genome to acquire new information.
Besides that, the fossil record practically falsifies evolution because we should be finding SO many intermediary species, but find none. (or nothing compelling).
Even Darwin admitted in his book that artificially-bred animals tended to revert to wild type characters. Also, his experiments with pigeons confirmed a fact which his theory of common ancestry started out ignoring: that species vary within limits. The fossil record showed no transitional fossils and till date it is merely assumed that random mutations would continually create new traits for selection. Even now, students are taught an outdated 20th century notion of random mutations when scientists have (courtesy of Barbara McClintock's work in the 50's) known for decades that mutations are controlled by processes in the cell and responsive to changes in the environment. In fact, it is such adaptive (or directed) mutations behind the change observed in Lenski's LTEE and many examples of speciation. Nor would you hear that evolutionists predicted Hox genes would have high variability because of a belief in macroevolution, but we know these genes which regulate the alignment and features of body parts show very little difference. These and much more show universal common descent for what it is: a theory dead on arrival.
There is zero evidence for macro evolution. There is nothing in the fossil record that points to it, all the bones found are either one bone or another nit in between. And when scientists thought that animals were in the middle of evolving there have been complex and simple life found so most likely no macro evolution there. And it can't be observed today, now some will say well yes what about the lung fish. Ask well has it changed from one organism to another. No it hasn't. There is nothing in support of this.
Anyone with half a brain can see that there is no concrete evidence of one kind turning into another. Since they believe everything has a common ancestor, it simply doesnt work from the standpoint of looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads you. The math just doesnt add up.
Look at the geological graph . Many things are missing like how did one thing get into a completely different species. Clearly yall need to reread your biology. First of all , darwins law doesnt exist. It never made it past a hypothesis. Secondly , God put the genetic Variation in species that show we get the different breeds of dogs.
If you want to see it with your own eyes, if that’s the only proof you’ll accept, then I must conclude you have seen God? Mighty claim indeed. If you can’t trust scientists what makes you believe you can trust a conspiracy site? Why believe anything at all? Can you even trust yourself? You’ve got it stuck in your head that science is against you when in fact, no, it doesn’t exist for you. Based on all collected evidence (Dating, DNA analysis, Fossils etc.) evolution makes more sense, it doesn’t make wild assumptions, it just relates to what we know to be a fact, and guess what, evolution hasn’t just stopped, it continues to this day and can be observed in several species including our own. If you can’t swallow the fact that you were once an ape then too bad for you. But maybe the wonders of your God are greater than you think.
Just because you don't understand the science and reasoning behind the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In my field of engineering we use a level of math that only 1% of the world understands. Just because you don't understand the math and physics behind it doesn't mean your cell phone, computer, and other things like your tv don't exist.
I have heard the "Kind" argument before. It is impossible to win because no evidence is capable of simultaneously disproving the argument as well as falling into the guidelines of said argument. All evidence given against it are considered "speciazation". What you call a "kind" we, in the scientific community, call a "species".
Evolution is fact. It has been accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, and has passed every evidentiary test with flying colors. We as a species now know more about evolution, and have more evidence for its veracity, than we do for heliocentricism. I assume nobody here will debate whether or not we orbit the sun.
The most recent nail in the coffin of scientific doubt of Evolution occurred in the 1960's, when DNA was discovered. In the early 2000's, the method of mapping genomes was perfected, and the human genome was mapped in its entirety for the first time.
That fact that the biochemicals that make up our DNA (guanine, adenine, cytosine, and thymine, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus) are identical in structure to the DNA of every living thing on the planet, including plants and single celled organisms, is proof of genetic kinship. We share a majority of our genes with other great apes, but we also share a great deal with other mammals in general, as well as to other vertebrates, as well as to non vertebrates, to plants, to fungus, to protozoa, to bacteria, so on and so forth in a correspondingly lesser and lesser degree. But while we may only share less than 10% of our genes with the tree in the yard, it does not shake the fact that we share genes, and even the genes we don't have in common are still made of the exact same biochemicals.²
When we compare the genomes of ourselves to our closest genetic cousins, we find that we are not just similar to apes, we are apes! Primates, to be exact, and quite clearly a subspecies, proven by the fact that we share nearly 99% of our DNA, according to recent sequencing and mapping of the genome of both common and bonobo chimpanzees. The assumption that we are somehow evolved from them is a clear indication of the vast ignorance of creationists regarding evolution, biology, genetics, and the process of natural selection.¹ We of course did not evolve from them, but rather we are extremely close genetic cousins.
These are just two examples of the most damning arguments we have against Creationism or Intelligent Design. The fact is Evolution is corroborated by mountains of evidence, much of it from separate lines of query (geology, physics, chemistry, etc) and all of it peer reviewed, mutually supported, and overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community.
Doubt about the theory's veracity, it seems, is relegated either to the uneducated or the willfully ignorant.
We have molecular evidence, where there are patterns within different species that would only make sense if macroevolution was true. We also have fossil evidence, with many transition fossils found, the fossil layers, etc. We also see ring species, like the salamander. In real science there is no difference between micro and macro evolution except time. A lot of small changes adds up to a big change.
There are numerous transitional fossils in the Fossil record, just that treacherous Creationists who worship money more than truth, don't want their followers to know about them. The conspiracy is not from Science, it is from the Creationists not wanting their source of income diminished by giving them real knowledge.
The truth hurts the Creationist leaders pockets.
Because Creationist leaders worship Money more than truth and God.
Transitional fossils between species exist. This is a fact for anyone that cares to do a Google search and not close their eyes and ears and sing nanananana I cant hear you. Also DNA evidence shows that we have common ancestors, the evidence is there is you are prepared to look at it and understand it.
I'm not an expert in DNA so I can't say whether it's a reliable piece of evidence for macro evolution, although the vast majority of scientists who actually understand the subject seem to think that it is. On the other, the evidence found in the fossil record (which is quite simple) is so overwhelming that it would be foolish to deny macroevolution.
There's a reason evolutionary biologists have taken to calling it "the fact of evolution" rather than, "the theory". Let me draw a parallel here:
Every mathematician in the world (with the exception of about .5% of them) claim that there are infinite real numbers. You then tell them that every mathematician alive is wrong, because you don't think there's evidence for the claim. But you aren't an expert. In fact, you know almost nothing about mathematics compared to them. Their knowledge on the subject is so far superior to yours, that the only way you'd understand the explanation is with years of schooling on the subject. But, of course, you ignore that fact and disagree anyway, because their idea doesn't conform with your world-view.
That's what's happening here. There's no reason NOT to believe in macro evolution. There are entire museums (American museum of natural history) mapping the minute changes that eventually led to large changes. That evidence aside, the fact that virtually every actual expert on the subject accepts the idea is a form of evidence in itself, which proves intuitively that some evidence does exist. Second analogy-
A geologist tells you that there's evidence the grand canyon was carved by way of erosion from the Colorado river. You disagree, saying that his evidence is completely biased, that the theory is total tripe. He looks at you, wondering what possible motive he'd have to be biased.. Entertaining the idea, he says, "And what evidence do you have for your claim? Can you tell me why my evidence falls short, or present evidence disproving it?" You reply with, "Of course not. I'm not willing to study to any significant degree on the subject, nor am I willing to provide evidence to disprove your claim. But you're still definitely wrong." ._.
Of course, such a person would use the same logic towards this comment, saying it doesn't apply to them, that I'm spouting nonsense... But I don't really care. Any objective person can see that this is the same essential argument used in formal debates against those who argue for evolution. A perfect example is the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate. Repeatedly, Bill Nye presents evidence, and repeatedly, Ham says it's false, and supports that statement with the recurring, fatuous line, "... There's this book." Books can't be evidence unless there's evidence in the book. No one seems to understand that concept. The burden of proof extends to the written word as well. A person who frequents this site should probably know that.
Evolution is fact.
This should not be listed as a debate. It is not a debatable topic. If you want to debate the finer points of evolution, go right ahead. I welcome scientific debate, but this is not a topic of scientific debate.
While we are at it, lets debate the theory of gravity?
Oh oh, better yet, let's debate whether the earth is round?
How about we debate the helocentric model, ya know, since I've never seen the earth rotate around the sun. The sun moves in the sky, so clearly it is the one that moves around us, jeez. You guys are just so absurd.
This debate is not a debate. There is a right and wrong answer. All people who click "yes there is no evidence " just do not understand science. Pure and simple.
Why do religious people claim all the time that there is no evidence supporting evolution when there is. But support a "God" who we would have never heard of if it wasn't a guy 2000 years ago called Jesus. I find it hard to believe that people will believe a nice guy that lived 2000 years ago over today's top scientists