i'm decently educated on natural selection and other aspects of evolution. to me, it makes perfect sense.
so tell me what it is about it that you find so absurd. then,,, after a bit,, check back up on this question under the "additional details" and look for my personalized response to you. i will respond to every serious answer. so go ahead, and try to stump me.
2006-07-24
15:25:58
·
49 answers
·
asked by
tobykeogh
3
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
KNOWHERE MAN,
that's not exactly a question, but it's a hell of a lot better than any of the answers that come before it.
we have men, and we have apes. (actually,,, humans ARE apes, but for the purposes of this response we'll say that only chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes.)
there were other intermediate forms, but they're all dead. we have their fossils though. the claim that no "missing links" have ever been found is just a lie. MANY missing links have been found, and they form a coherent chain that links humans to the apes that humans have been evolving from over the last 7 million years.
2006-07-24
15:56:49 ·
update #1
==============
==============
VOTE_4_ MY_AN.....,
do YOU know what those laws state??? it's sorta your job to explain WHY they conflict with the theory of evolution., not to type them and then run away.
the second law of thermodynamics is frequently spat out by creationists as a refute to evolution. and if you bothered to learn what that law actually is, then you'd see that it's really quite non-applicable seeing as how it only deals with closed systems and earth is an open system. the fact that we receive energy from the sun totally makes your argument irrelevant.
as for the third law,,, i've never heard a creationist throw that one at me. i just looked it up. it's seems to be about absolute zero. please tell me why this is even remotely pertinent to evolution.
===============
===============
2006-07-24
16:07:19 ·
update #2
MOSHY DOG,
hey, no cuts. i read your answer though, and it seems quite genuine, so i'll be back soon enough to respond to it. it just wouldn't be fair for me to answer you before all the rest of them.
2006-07-24
16:13:25 ·
update #3
===========
============
E,
i don't care what darwin believed in or didn't believe in. we're talking about darwinISM here. even if he started believing that the earth is flat, that wouldn't change what "darwinism" is.
furthermore,, who said anything about social darwinism??? that's something different. we're not talking about that. we're talking about biological darwinism.
2006-07-24
16:16:17 ·
update #4
DAVID S,
what terribly backwards logic you have. let me get this straight,,, you believe that evolution and god don't mix, right? well,, same here. only, you're making the assumption that god exists (despite the fact that his existence is both unsubstantiated and highly problematic) and coming to the conclusion then that evolution (which is substantiated and so far without any contradictions) can't exist seeing as how god already does.
you totally did that puzzle the wrong way, my friend.
2006-07-24
16:22:33 ·
update #5
BUCKY BEAVER,
well fist off, they have to be chromosomal mutations in order to be passed on genetically. further more, the mutations can't be too drastic, otherwise there will be no one for this newly mutated creature to mate with, and the lineage will die.
most mutations are gonna be bad, but it's not ridiculous for a mutation to be slightly helpful. for example, if a snake's DNA mutates and develops a gene that produces and extra vertebra, then that could easily help it to maneuver a little bit better.
it's pretty much been proven that viruses mutate and then are filtered out by natural selection. this is why specific medication often becomes useless against a specific virus after a certain amount of time.
with sexual creatures though, it's sorta hard to gauge which traits are new mutations and which ones are already buried under the gene frequency in a given population.
thank you for a good question though. i'm glad to see that some people are doing this seriously.
2006-07-24
17:06:12 ·
update #6
==============
==============
KC SUPERSTAR,
are you kidding??!! -- tons of missing links have been found:
sahelanthropus tchadensis
australopithecus afarensis
australopithecus africanus
homo habilis
homo erectus
homo ergaster
homo heidelbergensis
these species here make up a step by step lineage leading from our chimpanzee-like ancestors to us. please do not ever repeat the lie again that no missing links have been found.
the fact that evolution isn't mentioned in the bible isn't proof that evolution isn't true. it's proof that the bible was written by men who were in no way in cahoots with any sort of god. it is no surprise that the bible doesn't mention evolution. the bible also says that the value of pi is exactly 3. the bible also refers to the moon as "the second source of light" after the sun (indicating that the people back then thought that the moon made its own light). had the bible gone so far as to mention the shape of the earth, it would've said "flat".
2006-07-24
17:20:50 ·
update #7
the discrepancies between evolution and the bible disproves the bible, not evolution. go read what i wrote to david s.
lack of evidence??? not only do we have a lot more evidence than you guys do, but we also speculate ahead of time based on principles of triangulation and then later find evidence that confirms our speculations.
moreover,, there's more to life than just human life. quit focusing on just the ape to man section of evolution. that's a very small part of the whole thing. there are so many plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoans, and archaea that fit very nicely onto one very big tree.
the similarities can be noticed not only between humans and other primates, but also between dogs and bears, and between cattle and pigs. to call some of the similarities coincidence would be to call ALL of them coincidence.
and i don't think you realize what grave implications your use of the word "coincidence" is coming with. over 98% of our DNA is identical to chimp DNA.
2006-07-24
17:30:51 ·
update #8
================
================
CATHOLIC MOM,
i agree with you that it would be absolutely absurd to claim that an animal changes into another animal at some point over the course of its life. in fact, every well educated evolutionist would agree with you that that's an absurd idea.
darwinism does not claim that evolution occurs in this way. when an animal is born, it stays what it is for its whole life. the evolution only occurs between generations. a child is never exactly the same as its parents. each child is a little bit different.
like,, think of a giraffe. tens of millions of years ago, giraffes had necks that were maybe 48 inches (4 feet) long. but then they have a kid whose neck is 48.1 inches. then he has a kid whose neck is 48.2 inches. and after generations and generation, then necks are finally 9 feet long or whatever. you follow? -- it's a lot more complex than this, and took a lot longer. (like, it probably took 10 thousand years for the average neck length ......
2006-07-24
17:41:40 ·
update #9
........... neck length to increase by a ten of an inch.) plus, i don't want you to think that there's some sort of momentum behind the increasing neck size. (that would be lamarckism.)
in reality, there would be just as many children with shorter necks as there would be with longer necks. so it seems like they'd just cancel each other out and keep the average the same, right? well that's where natural selection comes into the picture.
natural selection would favour the longer necks over the average necks (because the longer necks would be more useful), and would filter out the shorter necks. so this would mean that the long neck genes will be more prevalent in the gene pool.
i don't quite know what you meant when you said "show me fossil evidence of a specie generation", but all i can say is that species are not quite as clear cut as you might think.
for example, are a horse and a donkey members of the same species? they can breed, which would mean that they ARE the same........
2006-07-24
17:54:10 ·
update #10
............. same species, but their offspring (mules) are sterile.
speciation is defined by whether or not two animals are able to breed. if they can, then they're the same species. and if they can't, then they aren't. it's not very cut and dry though. it exists more on a continuum.
for example, there's a type of bird (i forget what they're called), but i know that they live all across the arctic circle.
the ones who live in britain can breed with the ones who live in norway. ---- the ones in norway can breed with the ones in russia. ---- the russian ones can breed with the siberian. ---- the siberian with the alaskan, the alaskan with the canadian, and the canadian with the ones from greenland. BUT,,, the ones in greenland can't breed with the ones in britain.
so are they all the same species or not? there's no fine line, and therefore no clear cut answer. it's a matter of how much DNA is shared.
similarly, when animals evolve, they do it in VASTLY small steps ..............
2006-07-24
18:16:34 ·
update #11
.......... steps like these. it is the position of darwinism that there has NEVER been an instance where one species of animal has given birth to another species. it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another., each with only minor changes between the parents and their off spring.
thank you for your legitimate question. i hope i was able to show you that what you found wrong with darwinism are in fact not even facets of darwinism.
2006-07-24
18:21:25 ·
update #12
================
================
ZOMBIE,
darwin proposed the idea of natural selection. he didn't know what caused the variation that was being selected out, and he admitted that. then later, more and more became known about genetics, and they figured out that mutations are a very real thing. so people began to put the two together and realized that they went together quite harmoniously actually. so what's the problem???
as for darwin's finches, it doesn't matter if they're separate species or just different varieties of the same species. all that matters is that natural selection is what shaped them.
2006-07-24
18:40:10 ·
update #13
==================
===================
CHUCKLES,
evolution only becomes noticeable over a course of several millions of years, if not more. you can't expect to see anything in just 10 thousand years.
2006-07-24
18:51:45 ·
update #14
==============
================
WBYRNESS2008,
there are so many fossils and they ALL fit the idea of evolution. i'm sorry, but you are obviously very uneducated on this subject.
and i said it before, and i'll say it again, it doesn't matter what darwin said or didn't say. we're not talking about darwin. we're talking about darwinism.
======================
======================
2006-07-24
18:55:00 ·
update #15
C13REASONS,
i'm sorry, but how does the fact that a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs show that darwinism isn't taking place? -- i think you might not entirely understand what natural selection is. it's not an explanation for why things die.
=======================
=======================
2006-07-24
18:59:07 ·
update #16
===========
===========
GPLAY2001,
you have a common misunderstanding of what it means for "one species to evolve into another"., actually,, TWO common misunderstandings. so let me tell what exactly the stance of darwinism is.,,, that way you're not spinning your wheels against a straw man.
1. never at any time does one animal change into another. the changes only occur between generations. AND,,, the changes are so subtle that the are unnoticeable. the change from "one species to another" only becomes noticeable when looking at a specific lineage over the course of about 50 thousand generations, give or take.
we evolutionists also find the idea silly that a chicken would suddenly turn into a dog one day, or whatever. i mean,,, there's just no one who believes such a thing (at least not anyone educated on evolution).
2. there is no fine line between separate species. every child is different from their parents (in the case of sexual animals anyway). for example, you have .........
2006-07-25
04:39:37 ·
update #17
.......... you have different DNA than each of your parents, and different from every other person on earth in fact. these differences are not problematic though because they are subtle. if you tried breeding with a chimpanzee, nothing would happen because the DNA is just way too different. it would be like trying to install a jaguar engine in a toyota, or whatever.
so since DNA changes a tiny bit from one generation to the next, the differences begin to add up. eventually, after several hundred thousand years, the DNA is just so different, that the new animals can only be described as a new species. (and if they had a time machine, and could go back a million years to mate with their ancestors, it would produce no offspring.)
it's important to keep in mind that speciation is continual rather than incremental. (the actual process of evolution IS incremental, because the changes happen step by step from parent to offspring, but speciation is on a continuum. there are no .............
2006-07-25
04:54:24 ·
update #18
.......... there are no fine lines, and much gray area. (for example, are horses and donkeys members of the same species? it is a gray area. they can breed, but their offspring can't.)
the best way to grasp the idea of why speciation is continual rather than incremental is to think of colours.
imagine a long horizontal strip that is red on one end, and violet on the other. we'll say that it is 7 feet long, and goes through the colours of the rainbow.
now, if you view this strip as having one foot of red, then one foot of orange, then yellow, etc, then this would be incremental. each foot-length would change from one colour to the next very drastically, and it would be possible to compare two spots just millimeters apart, that are completely different colours.
now imagine the seven foot strip as gradually changing from red to orange, and then orange to yellow, with a countless number of variations in between. this is called a continuum. this is what speciation is like. ..........
2006-07-25
05:35:34 ·
update #19
Where Darwin went wrong was in his assumptions. He assumed that if one animal can change slightly, that they can change dramatically. This goes beyond natural selection, and is direct contradiction to many laws of science in the fields of biology and genetics.
Firstly, I think that darwinism assumes many things that it cannot prove. I have no problem with natural selection or microevolution as such, where animals and plants can adapt to their environment. That's scientific, as breeding animals/husbandry has been around for ages. However, the conflict comes with the proposal of Macroevolution. We are talking molecules to man, pond scum to person, which I think has major flaws.
The problem is that it has never been observed, and cannot be declared scientific as such. Darwin's theory of evolution is a good theory, but it is still only a theory.
secondly, the proposition is that mutations can add new information. This has never been observed, and according to genetic principles, the genetic code for each generation is successively less. So information is being lost, but never being added. Natural selection is different to this (adding info), as it selects from the information already there. Such as Darwins birds, where each had advantages in its genetic makeup, and selected from the genetic material for each bird, allowing some to use their beaks in different manners. Hence natural selection. However, this doesn't mean that if birds can evolve into a slightly different bird, that a bird can evolve into something else, or that something else, like a dinosaur, could evolve into a bird.
There are many other arguments, many that I have found through: check this web page out. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
2006-07-24 15:27:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
4⤋
First we can not except it because we know fromthe bible that Gad created the world and everything in it. I can also however give many scientific proofs against it however.
1. If evolution is true all species should go through intermediate stages while evolving but there are no focil records of missing links.
2. While going through intermidate stages the species could not survive. Let me give you an example. There is a type of clam that has a muscular foot shaped and designed exactly like a darter(a type of fish) inorder to reproduce it has to get a bass (which eat darters) to bite its lurr so it can insert its eggs into the basses gills. There the eggs hatch and the babies are nurtered in the oxygen rich environment until they are old enough to leave. If the clams lurr has a tiny part rong with it just a slight defect the bass won't bite it and that clam won't reproduce. Evolutionists say it took millions of years for the clams to form that lurr. So how did it reproduce while it was evolving the lurr?
3. a large portion of the mutations that supposidly took place on species were stomatic mutations but only genetic mutations will be passed on. So half of the changes that species supposidly went through would never have been passed on to the next generation.
4. Just look at the complexity of the world and the organisms I don't know how anyone can study biology and not see that it had to be desined by someone extremly inteligent and that it just couldn't have happened by chance.
5. In europe two mathmatitions (both were evolutionists and working independently of each other) decided to prove evolutiopn through mathmatics. Both of them ran the probabiloties and came to the same conclusion the possibiloty of evolution is 0 it cann't happen.
6. I would love to continue this but I am out of time so I will end with this Darwin himself denied evolution. Do some reaserch on this one, before he died he rejected his theorys and called them, "the babblings of a young fool" so you are folowing a theory not even its creator believed.
2006-07-25 16:03:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Han Solo 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you are lumping all Christians into the same basket, when that is just not the case. Even the Vatican has come out recently in support of evolutionary theory.
I consider myself a christian and I have no problem with Evolution.
I believe the problem is when people try to mix science and religion. To me it doesn't work, they are two different things entirely. I believe that science is an outward look at the universe. Science breaks things down into simple parts in order to understand who, what, where, when and how?
On the other hand, religion is an inward look at the universe with the sole purpose of answering the question, why?
I do not think either is well equipped for answering the others questions. For example, religion tends to look very silly when tries to answer the question, "How was the sun created?" and for that matter science cannot begin to attempt to answer the question, "Why was the sun created?"
Now you can argue that the "why" is immaterial, and that it is what it is, however to billions of people (remember, all religions attempt to answer "why", not only christianity) would argue otherwise.
Really, I find it more mind boggling is why would anyone bother with arguing about it? It is clear that scientists and religious scholars would rather occupy their time in new discoveries within their own fields. Why waste your time with it?
2006-07-24 15:44:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by johnnashiscrazy 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
faith is more important to many christians than science is, especially since darwinism doesn't explain much of the evolutionary theories found today. but it was the beginning of the scientific exploration of the source of life. still, it isn't complete due to different discoveries which often explain the pieces that don't quite fit the pattern, such as what happened to the dinosaurs. Darwin would say natural selection caused their demise, but geology has found that it may have been an extingtion due to a meteor hitting the planet at the designated time distinguished by the geologic record evenly spaced throughout the globe. a particular material found at that level can almost only come from a meteor, and is not a common material naturally found on earth. hence the sudden extingtion theory of the end of the dinosaurs.
2006-07-24 15:35:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by de bossy one 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is not a doubt that adaptation of species to their environment is seen abundantly; but adaptation is an inner species event whose change is not that significant to the overall species. There is not one piece of evidence that any one species has evolved or ever evolved into another species--either higher or lower. Yes the weak die and the strong live; but they do not change into something else. Everything species is as it was from the time it was created. That is why it is just the "Theory" of evolution and not labeled "Law" of evolution. If even one lone example could be found, Darwinism could be labeled a "law. If it were true and a happening event over millions of years, then we should be able to look out our windows and find evidence of evolving creatures in various stages of their evolution to different species. Millions and/or billions of years would certainly be enough time to allow for steady-state of event horizons; yet not even one example has been found. There are lots of excuses as part of the theory that are further extrapolations of explanations of the rather lame premise; but based on real science and mathematics where "laws" and "proofs" exist--it is not probabalistically practical to bet against God and the creation. I think even Darwin recanted his own theory on his death bed...that was probably his best thought ever.
2006-07-24 16:00:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
^ Except that the fact that God supposedly took 6 days to complete Creation is refuted by that premise as well.
NOTE: Evolutionary Theory does not include Cosmological ideas. Theories and Laws are equal in reliability in Science and thus Theories never "graduate" to become Laws. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is based on energy, not complexity and depends on a closed system to conlude net gains of entropy. The Big Bang is an expansion of time and space from a singularity, it functions nothing like the exlposions we see on Earth.
Anything else?
EDIT EDIT: Misquoting Guold to claim that those who accept Evolution have a planless and meaningless universe only shows you intellectual dishonesty (or ignorance) of the issue. Evolution (Directed by Natural Selection, but not towards a goal species) is unplanned, but this deals with the origin of species. The bigger picture of life and the universe remains unspoken for.
2006-07-24 15:37:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by eigelhorn 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd be happy to engage you in every aspect of your theory. Your belief in infinite matter is strange (as some would say about an infinite God). I'll start with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Im sure by now you know this LAW of science, that the universe is breaking down and getting less complex. How does that fit with evolution? We are on a downward trend. Also, what would cause matter to organize itself and form living organisms. Explosions, big bangs(your origins) create kaos, not order as we see in nature. Lets go.
2006-07-24 15:37:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes I think all monotheism religions, (Taurat,Bible and Al Qur'an) have the opinion that darwinism or evolution theory is ridiculouds.It is not logic.Why evolution theory was stopped ?Until now,monkeys are still monkeys not become a man or wom-
an.Animals are created by our God Almighty just like human bei-
ngs.Man and womam are created by our God since Adam and Eve until now,not as an incarnation from monkeys.Islamic teaching does have an incarnation belief.We believe that there was an evolution in the physical form of certain animals,but animals are still animal,not become men/women..I think human beings also have evalution Now boys and girls with a good foods,
physically are higher and more handsome/beautiful than a century before.
2006-07-24 15:57:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
I’m just wondering....do you think Christianity is absurd? I believe in Darwinism but I still took the time to actually read the bible and I even still listen to everyone that comes to me telling why they believe in Christianity. The more I hear about it the more I don't understand HOW people can even believe in it. I think the bible was more like guide lines a long time ago used to control a large community. All the stories were just to teach people right from wrong. But this day in age the religion has been misshapen and deformed in different places to make people do things to the churches liking. It was never meant to be taken literally. It was never meant to be changed just to control the masses.
2006-07-24 15:38:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm not a creationist, but evolution is swiss cheese. First of all, the science did not exist at the time of Darwin to support any of his ideas. The finches he based his theory on turned out to be different species of the bird. Mutation was injected into natural selection at a symposium in the 1940s to legitimize an otherwise baseless idea. In essence, they invented facts to support their premise, which is exactly what creationists do.
2006-07-24 15:33:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Zombie 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
believe it or not i half believe in darwinism, but only so far as unitellegent animals. you see when god first made adam and eve and the world, there is about 300 days not covered, and these aren't earth days , they're heavenly days (equal to about 3,000 years or so) so almost 900,000 years are unaccounted for. so in that time a simple race of monkeys bagen to evolve in to more sophisticated creatures. then adam and eve's son is banished to live on this planet. even the bible states these "others" as he was sent into the world. he mated with one making the imperfect human, but with freewill. then after that god put a stop to evolution. because after our over 10,000 year reign as humans there is almost no evidence of evolution, just deevolution. all the large creatures way back when became smaller until we were the rulers of the world. and if natural selection was true than how come we,the selected race, not evolving. we've lived for 10,000 years and are bascially unchanged.
2006-07-24 15:34:19
·
answer #11
·
answered by chuckles 3
·
2⤊
0⤋