any comments on darwin theory of evolution?

Question

any logical proof!

Answer 1

I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

Answer 2

Well, I'm reading The Origin of Species right now, and it is a good book. I was surprised, since I do not believe in evolution. (people keep saying that that is because I haven't read the "new" stuff, but that is not true. I'm going to college to study it...) Anyways, I will say that Darwin was a genius. He was great at making connections about nature and natural selection. From the info he had, and what he knew, his theory is great and makes total sense. But the only problem is that under modern science, it does not stand up.

Genetics, fossils, logic, math, probability, and every other field of science provides tons of evidence against evolution. It is just twisted and distorted so people will not know the truth. And I know that tons of people are thinking I'm an ignorant, religious, idiotic person, but whatever. Here are some great books about evolution, well, against evolution. I would give you some for it, but I'm sure they wouldn't be too hard to find (just go look in a bookstore or library, or www.talkorigins.com.) www.trueorigins.org refutes some of the things on talkorigins.

What Darwin Didn't Know is great, because it says very little about evolution, and nothing about religion except that he is not a theologan, if I remember correctly. Very good....

-Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton
-It Couldn't Just Happen, by Lawrence O. Richards
-What Darwin Didn't Know, by Geoffrey Simmons
-Darwins Black Box, by Michael Behe
-Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and education, by Phillip E. Johnson
-Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, by William Dembski
-The Lie: Evolution, by Ken Ham
-Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati
-Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, by Gish
-Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, again by Gish but it is the revised edition.
-The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, by Ken Ham
-That Their Words May be Used Against Them, by ???
-Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, by ???
-Refuting Compromise, by ??? (I think this one is more for Christians with religious arguments, but it still might be useful for some people.)

Answer 3

The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with the theory of Mendelian heredity to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as "Neo-Darwinism". The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next.[4] This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world.

Answer 4

Most people are too stupid to realize than Darwin did not in fact state than we are the decendents of "monkies". Rather, he suggests that we are from a commmon ansestor. Unfourtunatly, this "missing link" is extict and yet to be discovered.

There will never be an answer to the meaning or orgin of life because there will always be someone to dispute it. Darwin's theory of Evolution is the most logical answer. Religion is just a creation myth that was created to pacify the fear or death. I would much rather live in a world where science rules over blind faith (aka fear). I say we don't need to missing link. I say **** the proof. Just get smarter and relize religion is the simple man's answer.

Answer 5

It can be seen every day and has been observed just recently within our lifetime. Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the principles of random selection and of survival of the fittest. Just recently we've been seeing Tuburculosis, a disease which we could usually handle with a certain dosage of anti-biotics become anti-biotic resistant. Some of the bacteria that could survive the anti-biotics have lived on and their weaker counterparts have died off. The new generation of tuburculosis now can resist traditional anti-biotics. This is how the bacteria has evolved through survival of the fittest.

Not too long ago in England it was observed that the white moths turned grey or black within not that many years. This is because some moths were born naturall white, grey, or black. Originially these moths were mostly white because they typically would land on birch trees, so it was beneficial for them to be white. When the trees and buildings started to turn grey with soot from the new Industrial Plants during the Industrial Revolution, the white moths stood out on the birch trees and building surface, making it easier for predators to spot them and eat them. Natural selection killed the white moths off, while the grey and black ones survived.

Now, to humans. It is theorized that a common ancestor of chimps and humans, but that appeared more like monkeys had lived in the rain forrests of Africa. When environmental changes began, which turned the forrest into a Savannah, these ancestors which had pelvises which would allow them to walk upright to see longer distances down the flat plains and walk farther distances to get water or food, were beneficial to survival in this new enviornment.

Answer 6

Charles Darwin said that man cames from ape.

Answer 7

Logical? Think of animals in the wild. any that has even a slight edge on survival (avoiding preditors, finding food, better eyesight, better camoflage, etc.) has a better chance of mating and a better chance of passing this trait on to next generations. If it remains an advantage, it will get passed on again, and agian, etc.

Answer 8

It's only one of the theories for a possible explanation. Absolutely true answer is immaterial.

Answer 9

I could give too many comments, so, any specific questions in mind?

Answer 10

How else do you think everything happened?