Why are there so many Theories of Evolution?

Question

Hello everyone.. :)

Why has it taken and is still taking millions (according to some of those that believe in evolution) of years, to still try and find the origin of the Earth..has not man had enough time to answer this age old question..

This question is not meant to offend anyone, so please do not use it, to hurt one anothers beliefs.. :)

I ask this question, because I just read yesterday, scientist found a rock they said may change the big bang theory..

With Love..In Christ.. :)

Here is the sight I got the info about the rock...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13188535/

Here are some theories.. :)

Lamarkian InheritanceMonet: In the 1790's he popularized the idea of "the development or atrophy of organs through 'use or disuse' and their transmission to offspring who inherit these 'acquired characteristics'".

Darwinism: He believed that when more fossils were found, the fossil record would show evidence of these gradual changes. But after more than 130 years of searching, those fossils have not been found.

Pangenesis: Both Lamark and Darwin believed in pangenesis. According to pangenesis, a trait acquired by a parent during his or her lifetime could be passed on to children (Lamarkian or "soft" inheritance).

Neo-Darwinism: But in 1905, George Romanes, proposed the theory of Neo-Darwinism, which asserted that natural selection could operate using only inherited characteristics.

Natural Selection: Natural selection is simply the process that determines who wins the battle for survival.

Synthetic Theory: The real question in the fossil record is not, "What happened to the dinosaurs?" It is, "Where did the dinosaurs come from?" The fossil record doesn't show a gradual change from any creature into Tyrannosaurus Rex, or any other dinosaur.

Hopeful Monsters (Saltation): By 1940 it was clear (to Richard Goldschmidt, at least) that genetic research had proved that species cannot gradually evolve into other species, and that the fossil record showed that they had not. He reasoned that a small change in a gene might cause a large change in a mutant offspring.

Punctuated Equilibrium: In 1972, it was still evident from the study of genetics that species can't gradually evolve into other species, and the fossil record still showed that species didn't gradually evolve into other species. This popularized Ernst Mayr's earlier idea that "speciation could occur fairly rapidly in small, isolated populations. Cut off from the larger gene pool by geographic barriers..

Horses: Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson reexamined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled. In his book Horses (1951), he showed that there was no simple, gradual unilineal development at all.

Creation of Life: On March 28, 1997, we showed the video. "Is Life Just Chemistry?" in which Michael Girouard, M.D., showed that these experiments did not prove that amino acids and proteins could have formed naturally. In fact, they prove that life could not have happened that way. But even the strongly-biased Encyclopedia of Evolution admits:


Decades of persistent failure to "create life" by the "spark in the soup" method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. But even the most promising, technically sophisticated attempts to demonstrate the origin of life from nonliving chemicals are still guesses and gropes in the dark.

Panspermia: Panspermia is the belief that life could not have started by natural processes on Earth, so it must have started in outer space. This theory was first suggested by British astronomer Fred Hoyle in 1978. Simple life forms or amino acids may have ridden to Earth on comets or meteors. Of course, Hoyle recognizes this is no explanation for the origin of life; it simply moves the problem to another time and place.

Answer 1

Hi, EyeLoveJesus! I like your question! :-) Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet. Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries. I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"". Science isn't focusing on "god". It is focusing on studying the world and universe. :-) Anyway....

Scientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery. It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better. Scientists don't think alike at all. They tend to see different things in the same objects. :-) There are usually heated debates and discussions among them! ;-)

For me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed: macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution. I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution. That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism. Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.

I hope I clarified. I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating! Thanks for sharing the link. :-)

Answer 2

Okay, I'll move effortless on you when you consider that you are best 13. First of all, there is a giant bang idea, and there is an evolution idea. The 2 are thoroughly unrelated, besides that the primary is essential for the moment to arise. Can't rarely have matters evolving if the universe by no means banged, correct? Second, it is >feasible< that a few 'god', for loss of a bigger time period, began the whole lot off, after which simply stepped apart to permit matters take their path. Possible, however now not essential. Just sayin'. Third, there's no evidence that any god exists, neither is there any disproof, and there by no means will likely be any. The bible does not end up something, besides that decades in the past a few men wrote down a few stuff and it obtained accumulated into one ebook that a few persons take as scripture. Lastly, technology CAN be depended on. If you already know the clinical approach, it's self glaring that it's infallible while correctly used, and while improperly used, the mistake is quickly found out via rival scientists. However, no facet of ANY clinical idea says "....and for that reason, no god exists." Science offers best with the usual international, and the supernatural is left to religionists to argue approximately. One other thing - thank you SO so much for worrying approximately right spelling and grammar. That's an overly infrequent great at the present time (simply take a seem at one of the vital posts on this website), and many people do respect it.

Answer 3

I'm not aware of many theories of evolution. In science, a theory is a tentative explanation for observed phenomena, and is always subject to revision or even abandonment if it does not suffice to explain newly found phenomena that it should explain. The more the theory explains new phenomena, the more it is regarded as correct or trustworthy as a matter of scientific accuracy.

The essential part of evolution is explaining why there are so many different species that fit their ecological niches so well. It also has to explain the occasional anomaly in which a living creature survives in an environment it does not appear well-adapted to.

By positing random genetic mutations that either survive in their environments or not, and especially when the mutations give the new variant an advantage in that environment, or because the environment is changing, you not only understand how creatures evolve, but you can predict "missing links" that researchers can then look for.

If you believe that every creature was made by God as it is now, then you have a serious problem explaining the historical evidence of changes in the earth's living creatures over millions of years. You have to say that God is playing a trick on us. If a human deceives another person, that is regarded as a sin. How can it be any less a sin if done by God?

Answer 4

I don't know that there is more than one theory of evolution.Perhaps you are confused by the nature of the Scientific Method.In science,an idea is developed,based on earlier observations.This is called a theory.A theory is not a hard fact,but it can become one.For example,a simple one.Some scientist at some point,postulated that water got hard when it gets cold.Okay,thats a theory.Then that scientist performed experiments,and measured temperatures-lo and behold,water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit.That scientist published his data,and other scientists repeated the experiment and got the same results,and Ta-Da,a scientific Fact.
The Theory of evolution has a much tougher row to hoe.It is based on fossil evidence,and collected specimens,and observations made in just the last couple of centuries,as Science has developed.In terms of the evolutionary record,we've only been able to observe the tiniest pieces of the whole puzzle,but some things are beginning to emerge.Just like the general statement,"water gets hard when it gets cold",we are refining the data,and finding out more.Water under high pressure doesn't freeze at 32 degrees,water can exist as a gas,a liquid or a solid at the mysterious "Triple Point"(a fraction above the freezing point).This doesn't mean the Theory is wrong,it means it is being changed on the basis of observation.Science does not have the liberty of religion,to make bold statements,declare them as truths,and move on from that foundation.

Answer 5

It is simple. The big questions "where do we come from?" and "where are we going after death?" will never be answered. If you think about it objectively, there is no way we human can figure out such enigmas because, there is no one alive who was actually there when things started (if there was ever such a beginning) and no one will come back from the dead to tell us what is like in eternal dreamland.

With all due respect, what religion and scientists do is pure speculation. They can only guess what happened and what will happen, but no one actually possess the absolute truth about the subject. That's why nothing is written in stone and every once in a while some buster comes up with a new idea or "theory", let it be religious or scientific. But rest assured no one, absolutely no one, not even Stephen Hawking can prove anything 100%.

Answer 6

There is only one theory of evolution.
There have been many scientific discoveries that support the theory. The theory of evolution simply states that a species will evolve in order to be better suited for it's given environment.
I do not feel that all scientists that discover proof of a species' evolution, are merely trying to prove that God did not create the universe. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The theory isn't about God at all.
Do you believe that everything is as it was when God created it?
Nothing has changed? Do you believe that God meant for us to know everything there is to know?
If God never meant for anything to change, there would be no beginning and end. There would be no birth and death. No youth and aging. We would always be the same. I think God meant for things to evolve, and that the reason people still bother to try to discover the answers is because seeking knowledge is the purpose of life.
I wish that people would not continue to regurgitate the false statement that the theory of evolution is in direct contrast to the theory of religion. You should ask your own questions, and take glory in discovering the answers, because that is as God meant for it to be.
Oh, and the big bang theory, is not a theory of evolution, and also does not dispute the theory that God created the universe. It simply is a theory of how the universe came to be. It never states that God didn't use the big bang as a means to create the universe.
Science is a good thing. Finding the answers to any of lifes questions is a good thing.
Do you not think that a person seeking the cure for cancer is a good person? Do you believe that they also are trying to dispute the existence of God?
You can open your mind to knowledge, and still serve God.
I believe that God would think us quite vain, if we proclaimed to know everything, don't you?

Answer 7

Well, each of the different religions view on how the earth was formed could be considered a theory, unfortunately there is no real way to test the idea since most are based on supernatural causes. One of the reasons scientific progress has been slowed down is because of religious groups that feel threatened by being questioned. A brief look back in history shows many of the extraordinary people who questioned the world and searched for answers were rewarded by being accused of blasphemy, burned at the stake, imprisoned, and so forth.

Answer 8

There are many theories on evoution because ther are thousands of people making the theories on evolution.

In reality though, It doesn't matter how many theories theorists concoct, because without imperical tests (ie. going back in time) the the theories will never be proven. Likewise, Christians should not feel threatened by this. Evolution is not a threat to the biblical account of creation, although it may be to some Interpretations of the biblical account of creation. What you take away from Genesis 1:1 and all those who follow it in the Bible is that God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't need an explanation, because honestly if we knew, there wouldn't be enought paper in the world re record the conplexity and magnificants of God's creation project.

Answer 9

Perhaps it would help if you got you got your facts straight. The origin of the earth and of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution simply states that gene frequencies change in populations over time. This is due largely to mutation and natural selection.

The estimated age of the earth by the way is still the 4.5 billion years or so that it was almost fifty years ago. And while we know much more about cosmology than we did ( largely due to satellites ). The mathematical models are still based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity developed in the first quarter of the twentieth century.

Please don't believe everything you read on the web, from non-scientific sources. Creationists tend to promulgate lies.

Answer 10

The evolution theory has a very weak foundation simply because the very fact that their claim has no basis. If what they claim is true, why do we have to dig so deep for different kinds of evolution process between species? Except for maybe some deformed fossils here and there. It doesn't really show consistency. Shouldn't it be just everywhere? Shouldn't the evidence be obvious to us by now if this is true?



"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Answer 11

Have you read Genesis?

The Big Bang that scientists are trying to prove matches Genesis. Science just uses different terms that primitive humans couldn't understand; God explained it so that humans could understand. "Light and darkness were one" describes the black hole. "God separated the light from the dark" God didn't tell us threw a rock at it, but he might have. "He separated the heavens [air] from the earth" describes how the matter that forms the planets settled with lighter air over the solid ground.

Evolution can be seen in the order that God created the species. The evolution theories have general classifications appearing in the same order as they do in the Bible. Only human evolution does the Bible not address, and it is also the evolution with the least evidence.

God created science. God created the world we know using the laws of science that God himself designed. Anything that the scientists prove only reinforces what the Bible told us thousands of years ago.