• Yes, for some reason we are!

    We have so many other ways to evidence evolution, besides the fossil record, which BTW does not refute evolution. DNA and the common genetic code of all organisms is one of the best ways to illustrate there is relation between species. Since there is a relation we can determine how much of the DNA uses the same phrasing in reference to specific proteins to establish distance between species, and this points to a common ancestor. Microevolution has been observed, which with no reason to believe there is a barrier between micro and macro, and this points toward evolution being true. Also, speciation has been observed. This is a prediction evolution makes that has been proven accurate. To argue against evolution at this point can only be from a position of ignorance.

  • Are we still arguing about this?

    There have been numerous 'transitional' fossils found that support evolution. The deniers' call for these as evidence is usually fallacious, anyway, because any time we find a fossil that lies between two distinct, already established species, they typically just say this is insufficient, and ask for yet another (between the new one and one of the old ones). Obviously, this can just infinitely regress.

    Additionally, a great deal of DNA evidence (which Darwin didn't anticipate) has been established. Specifically, there's a ton of DNA evidence of different 'human' species before homo sapiens, directly showing our evolution.

    There is a massive amount of evidence out there and, of scientists who work in earth and/or life sciences (i.E. The relevant fields), 99.9% support evolution. Only 0.15% don't. Evolution should not even be a debate as this point.

  • How is this even still a question?

    Denial of evolution at this point is rather akin to denying the Earth revolves around the sun. We have over 150 years' worth of hard evidence illustrating evolution with common descent, and genetics alone would be sufficient even if we never had a single fossil.

    Evolution denial is a religious complaint, found almost exclusively among the ignorant and uneducated.

  • Let's throw out physics if we're at it.

    From the single atom, to molecule, to multicellular organisms, they all obey certain physical laws. Chemicals react and genes get transcribed, all due to the number of protons, neutrons and electrons the atoms of the cells are composed by. It's quite logical that if anything observed in the present to function in a certain way, it did so in the past as well. Evolution is not as far-fetched as some people make it out to be.

    Even Francis Collins from the Human Genome Project postulated that DNA alone is proof enough for evolution, even in absence of all fossils. And although Darwin had a brilliant brain, we know so much more today. We have so much more evidence. The Sciences are increasing exponentially. So, of course Darwinian evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. All it takes is some research and an open mind.

  • Amazing anyone even attempts to deny evolution.

    There is NO debate among the educated about the fact of evolution. Probably the most tested and proven scientific endeavor in history. Evolution is supported by every field of study and not a single one has any evidence to discredit evolution. Unfortunately, our world is full of ignorant and superstitious people who would rather believe in magic.

  • By Darwin's own requirements for his theory, the proof beyond reasonable doubt does not exist.

    Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species" in 1859 and included two chapters concerning the missing evidence he would need in order to prove his theory to be truth. His suggestion was that the future would produce a fossil record with the "Innumerable" transitional species that were required by Darwin himself in order to prove the theory.

    It has been over 150 years since Darwin wrote that book and thus birthed evolutionary theory and the Innumerable transitional fossils have never been found.

  • No it hasn't

    Anyone who has really done the research will find that it takes a much larger leap of faith to believe the theory of evolution than it does to believe in creation.

    No one has ever found the missing link, and there is no evidence that evolution is real at all.

  • Evolutionists explain the many problems away with the phrase 'given enough time anything is possible'. Statistics show macro evolution is impossible, implausible and unscientific.

    By David Menton: Evolutionists hope that by invoking immense amounts of time, highly improbable events can somehow be made probable. But with this type of argument it is possible to "explain" ANYTHING. We've all heard it said, for example, that "given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, EVENTUALLY one of them is bound to type the sonnets . The probability of rolling a particular number on a die, for example, is one chance out of six (the total number of possible sides) or 1/6. The probability of getting TWO particular numbers on two successive rolls of the die is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36, which is to say you would expect to succeed once in 36 rolls. What then is the probability of randomly selecting the appropriate letters and spaces from a Scrabble set to spell "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION"? There are 26 different letters and a space in the alphabet (total 27) and there is a total of 23 of these letters and spaces in our sentence. The probability of spelling this sentence without error by blindly drawing and replacing letters from our 27 character set is calculated by multiplying 1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 .... 23 times. The answer reveals that we would expect to spell this simple sentence correctly by CHANCE approximately ONCE IN 8 HUNDRED MILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION draws!! If we drew and replaced letters at the rate of a billion a second we would expect to succeed once in 26 THOUSAND, TRILLION YEARS!! Now the simplest living organism is so vastly more complex than our simple sentence, that we have no way of really calculating its probability. If, however, we consider just one one particular protein of average size (say 500 amino acids) from among the thousands of proteins in a living organism, we can easily calculate the probability of forming it by CHANCE. Proteins are made of a tightly linked chain of amino acids. There are only 20 different amino acids used in the proteins of ALL living organisms and they are arranged in a linear sequence much like the letters of a long paragraph. Assuming an inexhaustible supply of each of the 20 different amino acids, the probability calculation would be 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ... 500 times. The number of possible combinations of the amino acids in this protein is 1 with over 600 zeros after it! Even if we were to begin with the proper mixture of 500 amino acids to make our particular protein, we could never get the correct sequence for them by CHANCE. Even if the entire universe were packed tight with computers the size of electrons, each trying a billion combinations of our 500 amino acids a second, we could sample only an infinitesimally small fraction of all of the possible combinations in 300 billion years!

  • 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & Transitional Species

    The 2nd Law says that all things, when left alone, tend to chaos or disorder. Evolution would require that living things randomly become more ordered and more complex. Scientifically speaking, I don't believe that's possible.

    If evolution had occurred, I believe there would still be transitional species alive on earth, The likelihood of all of them dying is very slim, after having lived here for millions of years during the transition. There are still primates, and there are still humans, but nothing in between.

  • There is no scientific evidence that life-forms have common ancestors

    We can see that organisms change slightly in different environments. There is no evidence, however for descent from common ancestors. This is merely assumed because of certain similarities between us and apes. But this similarity should not be surprising if we look at the fact that science proves all life on Earth originated from roughly the same chemicals. It doesn't prove common ancestry. Until common ancestors fossils are found we shouldn't believe in Darwinian evolution.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.