where have come from, is it Darwin's theory or from Adam & Eve, Which is right?

Answer 1

Both are in there own way correct.

There is no way Evolution is completely correct because if we evoulved from apes, and apes from fish, and fish from one-celled amoebas- what did the one cell amoebas evolve from. There had to be a beginning. There is no creation without a creator, there is no life without prior life. We cannot have evolved from dirt- so the question is were did the first living organism come from?

The big bang theory good explain the beginnings, only there is a huge flaw with that as well. The big bang theory says that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small ball and the gravitational pull ended up making the ball explode everywhere creating everything. Well where did the ball of matter come from? You could say that it came from a previous explosion that destroyed the previous universe, but where did that one come from? Unless we are in a never ending cycle- which dictates someone must be monitoring it. And if someone isn't then someone created it. Thus a creator.

So back to Darwins theory. One must point out for the sake of knowledge that on his death bed Darwin recanted the theory of evolution. Anyways, someone had left an answer that explained all the reasons evolution must exist, the thing is though, those could as easily been facts that prove the theory of adaptation. Things, such as intelligence, laziness, emotions, and such that exist in humans nowadays cannot be pointed towards evolution. If we had evolved perfectly we would be able to live without houses, technology, and intelligence and be able to survive on natural instinct. But we can't. And where did those things come from. It points towards a creator.

Now not saying its Adam and Eve or whatever, though it easily could've been- there had to be two orignal humans that existed before the others, unless we were orignally asexual. Now they were probably nothing like us, we are Homo Spiens, they might've been a Homo Erectus, or even or more primative form of the Homo genus. But there had to be 2. Now there was definetely adaptation, that is obvious by the races in the world. Asians have narrower eyes because once their lands were a frozen waste land and only those who developed an extra layer of fat on there eyelids could survive with there sight. Africans have darker skin do to the fact that they lived in a warmer climate with more sun, and the pigments darkened to protect them from UV rays.

Natural selection and adaptation due, beyond a doubt exist. A creator, in all scientific logic must exist. And in the same logic, orignally two humans existed. So there you have it, Adam and Eve, subjected to adaptation and natural selection to give us the species we are today.

Who says science and religion can't get along?

Answer 2

It's not an either/or proposition. Darwin's basic theory has been modified over the last 150 years to bring it more into line with genetics (which was not known in Darwin's time). This synthesis happened about 50 years ago.

In any case, the legend of Adam and Eve is just that: a legend. It has no basis in reality.

Answer 3

Well as you've already said 'Darwin's theory' it is still a theory to this very day. Adam and Eve that takes faith. Personally I'd rather put my faith in the God of the universe and believe in Adam and eve than in some mortal sinner who believed in a theory. By the way did you know that darwin actually stopped believeing in his theory and turned back to the bible in the end. I wonder why?

Answer 4

Charles Darwin all de way! I beleive in God and the Adam and Eve story too tho, which i know is a big contradiction but darwins stuff is so well known and proved and stuff! I hope dat makes sense! :)

Answer 5

Adam & Eve is the figment of someone's imagination to control the population centuries ago. Darwin's probably got it spot on.

Answer 6

Darwin but its not yet the complete theory. The other one, well which theory do people use when they want money from you and power over you. Think about it. Your brain evolved, use it or lose it.

Answer 7

No scientific claims Darwins theory has all the answers, but it provides a more scientific approach then creationism. Believe what you like. No one has all the answers.

Answer 8

These are some of the reasons that we can be confident that species are the product of descent with modification by means of natural selection - i.e. evolution:

o Evolution is observed today - New strains of the
influenza virus are a good example.

o There is no reason to doubt that evolution has
always occurred.

o Evolution explains why the fossil record shows
constant change throughout the history of life.

o Evolution explains why the fossil record shows
species arising, diversifying and going extinct.

o Evolution explains why the fossil record shows more
differences from today's flora and fauna the further
back we look in time.

o Evolution explains why geographically isolated
places (e.g. islands) have many unique species.

o Evolution explains why isolated islands have plants and
birds but no indigenous amphibians or large mammals.

o Evolution explains why new species arise
geographically close to similar species.

o Evolution explains why similar species inhabiting
different environments tend to be close geographically.

o Evolution confirms other, independent scientific
theories, e.g. plate tectonics.

o Evolution explains why the fossil record is consistent
with similar species having a common ancestor.

o Evolution explains the existence of transitional
fossils, many of which have been found.

o Evolution explains why we never find fossils in rocks
which are older than their presumed ancestors.

o Evolution explains why organisms never breed offspring
of a different group, e.g. a dog born from a cat.

o Evolution is the result of mutation and inheritance.
There is no known mechanism to limit evolution.

o Evolution explains why different continents have
different flora and fauna in the same kind of habitat.

o Evolution explains why living and extinct species fit a
statistically valid phylogenetic tree.

o Evolution explains why the chirality of DNA, RNA and
proteins is the same in all living organisms.

o Evolution explains why all living organisms use DNA
and RNA, never a different genetic material.

o Evolution explains why all living organisms use only 4
nucleosides out of hundreds of possible molecules.

o Evolution explains why all living organisms use the
same 22 amino acids out of 390 possible choices.

o Evolution explains why the genetic code is universal,
with only minor differences, and those differences only
between major groups e.g. plants and vertebrates.

o Evolution explains why all known species share the
same energy storage molecule, ATP.

o Evolution explains why Vestigial features are common
in living organisms, e.g. the human coccyx.

o Evolution explains why living organisms display
numerous atavisms, e.g. children born with tails.

o Evolution explains why we see fundamentally very
different species of animals with similar features in
the same environment, e.g. sharks and whales.

o Evolution explains why the embryological development of
organisms leads to testable predictions of origins.

o Evolution explains parahomology - i.e. similarity in
structure despite differences in function.

o Evolution explains suboptimal functions and structures,
e.g. the blind spot in the The mammalian eye.

o Evolution explains genetic sub-optimality e.g. why
one Paramecium has 3 times more DNA than humans.

o Evolution explains why molecular sequences of
ubiquitous genes have high functional redundancy.

o Evolution explains why rate of change in the
fossil record is consistent with the rate of
mutations observed in species today.

Every single one of these different and independent forms of evidence is supported by dozens, hundreds or thousands of individual observations. They all make sense according to evolutionary theory. None of them make sense if you suppose that living organisms are *not* related by common descent. Moreover, unlike religious beliefs such as 'intelligent design' they are all falsifiable, and are therefore valid forms of scientific evidence.

Finally, there is the philosophical argument: It is utterly inconceivable that the complexity and organisation inherent in living organisms could just exist from nothing, and this is the fatal flaw of any concept of a designer: If you argue that life requires a designer, then the designer would have to already exist, with the complexity and intelligence necessary to design living organisms... but then you have contradicted your argument by asserting that complexity does not in fact need a designer – You’re saying it *can* just exist without a designer. Any argument which says that the complexity of life can only be explained by an undesigned designer is self-refuting.

The only alternative, then, is that complexity and organisation arise from simplicity and chaos by the operation of unthinking, undirected natural processes. In the case of living organisms, this means evolution, and the truth of this fact is shown by such a vast amount of evidence that the rejection of evolution can only be accounted for by ignorance of the facts or complete dishonesty.

Answer 9

I like Darwin.

Answer 10

Each individual person has to chose their own answer to this question.

I personally believe that we came from Darwin's theory. But, that's just me! :)