Does anyone still doubt Evolution? If so please read this...?

Question

Here is an excellent link showing not only the reality of evolution, but it should finally put to rest any and ALL arguments about Macroevolution not being observable or observed. Paleontologists and Biologists have known for a very long time that Macro evolution does indeed occur but there have been no simple method of explaining this to the general public.
Thankfully now, there is.
Please click on the link (not to worry it's not porn, or a joke or a virus site, it's a Yahoo news site) and read, really read and understand that Evolution is not only real, it is happening all around us. It usually takes MUCH longer but these finches seem to be in a big hurry to be able to access a new food source.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution_1

And if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
(If you're wondering why I put this in religion, it's because that is where the majority of people who choose to disbelieve evolution hang out.)

Well the first two replies are from people who apparently can't read or didn't want to bother reading. What's wrong, is your faith so very flimsy that a teeny bit of fact will shatter it?
You have my pity. Now close the door to the halfway home's computer room...

theprettyone;
What do you mean? If you're talking about the proverbial "missing link" sorry you won't find it. It is a creationist fantasy, nothing more.
The fossil record is quite complete (though it does have gaps) and despite those gaps shows a very gradual and progressive change from taxa to taxa.
Sorry to burst your bubble there. I guess "cute but dumb" would be a better name for you huh?

If anyone thinks I want to change your beliefs, your wrong. I'm just trying to educate people.
But if people don't want to learn, that's not my problem. After all my father used to say "son you can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't make him think".
I'm leading others to knowledge by posting this, but he was right, I can't make them think.
But at least my consience is clear.

Glockgemini,
ROTFLMAO!!!
thanks for the laugh this afternoon man I certainly needed that. Oh let me wipe this tear away here.
For someone like yourself to say something as stupid as that, is more than enough evidence that ID has NO place in the classrooms of the world.
Honestly I cannot imagine being that ignorant about reality. tell me, what's it like replacing the capacity for reason and rational thought with ignorance and blind faith. Because I have NO idea what it must be like...

Answer 1

Just for the sheer sake of sounding like a religio-retard, I'll spew an answer so absurd it could only make you laugh. (or giggle at the very least)


Evolution is false because I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) created the world 6000 years ago; he started with a mountain, trees, and a midgit. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by the FSM so that things would look older than they really are. Whenever scientists measure the age of something with Carbon-14 tests, the FSM tampers with the results with his noodly appendage. So, you see, there is no evolution.

Answer 2

Variation (erroneously called micro-evolution) has always happened. But it does not mean that a T-Rex turned into a finch. You must be a homosexual if you hate God so much. That's the only logical explanation.


EDIT: Okay- I thought so. I did not go read what you wanted before I answered. Now I have, and I was right. You are way behind in the argument. This is variation-they are all still finches. And this makes you stupid. Grow up and get some real facts before you spout off a bunch of nonsense. All you have is variation nothing else-there is absolutely no evolution at all here.

Edit, edit: It is probably too late, but i shoulden't have assumed you were gay-that was wrong. I am sorry for that remark.

Answer 3

There is a difference between doubting EVOLUTION and doubting the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Christians can still see and believe in evolution, as in your little Finch article there. However your little Finch article does nothing to prove that man came from monkeys... do you see what I mean? Your article is basically proving the "Survival of the Fittest" theory... those Finches with larger beaks have died, leaving only the smaller-beaked Finches in the gene pool to keep breeding. That doesn't have anything to do with Christian or non-Christian beliefs -- that's a natural fact. Smaller-beaked Finches are the only ones left alive to breed. Again, however, a Christian will not argue the scientific theory of evolution with you; we may, however, argue the debate of non-Creationism. Do you see where I'm going with this? I don't usually answer questions like this because I'm relatively new to the whole Christianity thing... I'm just trying to say that I doubt there are many people out there who don't believe in evolution but rather we don't believe in non-Creationism. If you believe only in evolution, what do you think those Finches are going to be in a million years.... Humans?! Whales?! That's the part that makes me laugh.

Answer 4

Even Darwin believed that he was on thin ice with evolution. Evolution is the religion of those who are afraid to believe in God and Creation. Almost every "fact" in evolution has been disputed with reputable science. Yet, some people will do anything to keep from believing the Truth. There is a very warm, okay, a damned hot, place for all those who worship Nature and evolution.

Answer 5

The species didn't change. The DNA didn't change. All that happened was the birds with big beaks in their genes became much scarcer in comparison to those without them. This didn't disprove anything, it just illustrated a principle of evolution that isn't even debated.

What would disprove our arguments would be if the birds with big beaks lived to reproduce, but their offspring began developing smaller beaks anyway. That would be a change in DNA brought on by necessity, like whales deciding they'd be better off as land animals or vice versa. There is no evidence of such a phenomenon, and the idea itself is a paradox.

Answer 6

Read your own article, it says "This was certainly a documented case of micro-evolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research."

Now read the wikipedia article on MICROEVEOLUTION http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-evolution

Now read the Wikipedia article on MACROEVEOLUTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

You will see, that for it to be Macroevolution the species has to change, this article says nothing about that, there for it has nothing to do with Macroevolution.

Most reasonable people aknowledge Microevolution. With what we currently know about genetics Microevolution is kind of obvious. Macroevolution, the only way we could have gone from single celled orgnizims to humans, is much less proven, and not even refernced in your article.

Answer 7

Please the beak changed. The bird already existed. Evolution- All life forms was formed from a single cell. I would like to know how. Evolution- Man came from apes, gorillas, chimps, etc. Why do they still exist. Remains on an island show people existed along side what the people thought was the Neanderthal. Show me something that has evolved from something else. Please don't show me something that already exists but has altered in appearance. We all evolve if that is the case when we age. Oh and one more thing, man evolved from rodents. Try watching the National Geographic tape of evolution and post dinosaur period.

Answer 8

They are still birds.No one questions speiciation,it is when the theory attempts to go above speiciation that is unproven.People have been breeding cattle and dogs and crops for thousands of years we didn't need science to prove we could.Find some proof of something changing family and people might believe in it until then it is a laughing stock and only die hard closed minds believe it.

Answer 9

I though I was an athiest when I was younger,because I would read things in the bible,that did not believe,Noah's ark,Adam& Eve. I mean as a kid I know that these were stories.I found out later in life that a was a Deist.I was always fascinated by nature and the universe. that how I deal with the bible.

Answer 10

you said this was an example of macroevolution
the article said this was an example of microevolution

creationists and evolutionists both believe in MICROevolution, adaptations of species, like a rabbit to a polar rabbit or a dessert rabbit...

creationist do NOT believe in MACRO evolution and his article does not discuss MACRO evolution

perhaps ou did not realize the difference? did you realize this article does not discuss MACRO evolution but only something agreed to by both evolutionist and creationists that micro evolution happens?

did you read it? it said

"....This was CERTAINLY a documented case of MICROEVOLUTION, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research...."

In any case, macroevolution did NOT happen
and a great DVD by werner Gitt is
In the Begining was information
explaiing why using information science applied to genetics