Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, evolution is an out dated theory.

    Any evolution that is not microevolution has had no evidence showing that it is a real fact. After so long shouldn't they have found a full skelton of one of the early evolutions of humans? In fact they have found full skeltons of modern day humans. If you have found any real proof of evolution other then microevolution besides these fake skeltons please give me the link.

  • Were is the fossilized proof of the in between

    We believe in the theory of evolution because we dont want to except the fact that there is a god the fossilized proof supports the flood and not evolution we want to believe we are our own god i would like to believe we were not a chance and were intentional

  • Evolution claims that biodiversity is due to randomness, But genetics is deterministic not random.

    As I understand it evolution is about 2 things common descent and the mechanism by which species develop. Unfortunately, The mechanism suggested are random genetic changes and natural selection.

    While there is plenty of talk of random genetic changes, Everyone knows that these changes aren’t really random, It’s just that we don’t understand the underlying factors well enough to explain why they happen. To prove this is so, Substitute the phrase mutations with no known cause for random mutations, And see if our the following sentence makes more sense. Sometimes doctors can discern the causes of the mutations that cause cancer, Other times its due to random mutations. Obviously while the causes of cancer may be unknown, They are not random. Since cancer is an example of an evolutionary change in cells, We can apply the same phraseology to evolutionary biology to define the concept more accurately.

    Evolutionary theory states that biodiversity is the result of mutations with no known cause and natural selection. Even if we add the other mechanisms to the picture it doesn’t really help, Because evolutionary biologists can not use them to predict how evolution will unfold. It is claimed that evolution has no purpose or end goal, But an more accurate statement is: Biologist are unable to use our understanding of evolution to predict how species, Nor ecosystems will evolve in the future or why they evolved the way they did in the past. If you combine the two ideas here, With what is known about evolution we can get the following statement:

    Evolution can be defined as the frequency of genes in a population changing over time. It has been observed to happen trough genetic drift, Hybridization, Horizontal gene transfer and mutations with no known cause. Evolutionary theory states that biodiversity is the result of mutations with no known cause and natural selection. Biologists are unable to use our understanding of evolution to predict how species, Nor ecosystems will evolve in the future nor why or how they evolved the way they did in the past. Hopefully, You can understand why some feel that there has to be a better explanation than that.

  • Evolution claims that biodiversity is due to randomness, But genetics is deterministic not random.

    As I understand it evolution is about 2 things common descent and the mechanism by which species develop. Unfortunately, The mechanism suggested are random genetic changes and natural selection.

    While there is plenty of talk of random genetic changes, Everyone knows that these changes aren’t really random, It’s just that we don’t understand the underlying factors well enough to explain why they happen. To prove this is so, Substitute the phrase mutations with no known cause for random mutations, And see if our the following sentence makes more sense. Sometimes doctors can discern the causes of the mutations that cause cancer, Other times its due to random mutations. Obviously while the causes of cancer may be unknown, They are not random. Since cancer is an example of an evolutionary change in cells, We can apply the same phraseology to evolutionary biology to define the concept more accurately.

    Evolutionary theory states that biodiversity is the result of mutations with no known cause and natural selection. Even if we add the other mechanisms to the picture it doesn’t really help, Because evolutionary biologists can not use them to predict how evolution will unfold. It is claimed that evolution has no purpose or end goal, But an more accurate statement is: Biologist are unable to use our understanding of evolution to predict how species, Nor ecosystems will evolve in the future or why they evolved the way they did in the past. If you combine the two ideas here, With what is known about evolution we can get the following statement:

    Evolution can be defined as the frequency of genes in a population changing over time. It has been observed to happen trough genetic drift, Hybridization, Horizontal gene transfer and mutations with no known cause. Evolutionary theory states that biodiversity is the result of mutations with no known cause and natural selection. Biologists are unable to use our understanding of evolution to predict how species, Nor ecosystems will evolve in the future nor why or how they evolved the way they did in the past. Hopefully, You can understand why some feel that there has to be a better explanation than that.

  • If evolution is true, Death is impossible and Frankenstein is not fiction.

    Evolution says that under the right environmental conditions amino acids formed DNA which led to life, Then organisms, And the rest is history. SO, Imagine a fly is swatted. It DIES, Yet what changed? Environmental conditions perfect? Yes. DNA there? Yes, In fact all of the other chemical stuff is still there, Too. Yet. . . He DIES. If evolution explains the origin of life, It cannot explain death. I submit, Nor can it explain the incredible diversity and complexity of life in all its many forms. --- The THEORY of evolution is not outdated; it is extremely flawed because it doesn't fit the facts; just as flawed as the belief that the sun revolved around the earth which was "settled 'science'" for a few hundred years. About as long as the ridiculous theory of evolution. And, By the way, Those in scientific circles who claim that evolution is no longer a "theory" are just as blindfolded as those who fervently believed in earth centricity.

  • Charles didn't had the observational tools that exist today

    Today we have tools to look more closely at the inner workings of cells - Charles Darwin developed a theory that was fitting for the time. Along came the electron microscope, which led to the discovery of DNA, complex nano cellular machinery reading, copying, assembling proteins from pieces of DNA and RNA

    On top of the DNA instruction set layer we have epigenetics, an added layer that allow an organism to survive it's environment with individual locale adaption.

  • Of course not!

    I'm not going to elaborate, there's just no need to, scientific consensus suffices. I just wanted to unequivocally join my voice to those already on this side of the question :) Oh, I see, it seems I am forced to elaborate in order to satisfy the word count, nearly done.

  • It's not outdated, but not necessarily correct.

    As a Christian, I believe in Creationism, but the fact is evolution has a stand. Evolution is a theory still under much controversy and thus it is not outdated. Most of the opinions here have it confused with outdated and correctness. Therefore even though it is not outdated, it doesn't mean its correct.

  • No, it is not!

    A theory in science is doing the scientific method over and over again to achieve the same results. A person can do an experiment, and achieve a certain result. Then, another person does that same experiment and achieves the same result. For something to become a theory, this has to happen at least a hundred times. A scientific theory cannot be outdated!

  • No, but Christianity and creationism is.

    This question must have been asked by a "believer". Evolution has so much supporting evidence it is considered a fact not a theory in the simple sense. The only people who deny evolution are people clinging to their Bible, desperately denying anything that contradicts and therefore makes their book look wrong and irrelevant.

  • The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

    Evolution is not outdated, but most religions that do not endorse evolution are living in a vacuum of religious dogma that states the earth is only about 10,000 years old and dinosaurs existed at the same time as man.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Catholic Church accepts evolution because they know the science is correct. They know that creationism can’t be true. They accept that the tales in the Bible were written by ancient men of little scientific knowledge. The Catholic Church does believe that at some point in Evolution, God put the soul in man. The concept of “the soul” is a superstitious belief that can’t be proven; but, at lease the Catholic Church accepts evolution.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The human body has 206 bones; the gorilla body has 206 bones. Anyone that can see the similarities to man and the apes is just denying the facts.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, the talk about the missing link is easy to understand. Please read the following article for an understanding why it is missing.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “Evolution and the Missing Link: Why Is It Missing?”
    http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/11/01/evolution-and-the-missing-link-why-is-it-missing.htm

  • Quite absolutely not!

    Evolution has been observed and is supported by evidence unlike the bunk ideas of creationismo.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

    To those who will accept only "microevolution". There is actually no relevant difference from microevolution and macroevolution. They happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real difference between them. Just like bacteria can accumulate in space to such a scale they are visible to the eyes (in such the case of biofilm and micobial-mats) evolution can accumulate in time to such a scale to be visible to the eye.


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