Evolution..evidential?

Question

Honestly, what's got into some heads...science says...hold on to a live electrical cable...turn on the switch...get an electrical shock.

same science says, genetics, DNA, evolution etc scientifically well disputed and agreed..millions of researchers confirming the natural processes of evolution.

Not one single IDT paper has passed any form of scrutiny by the scientific community...there is no argument...
Evolution is as factual as the air you breath..and the air you breath evolved as a by product of earlier earth life..
our evolution of species depends on our ability to learn how life processes work.
If we fail to accept the importance of evolution and thus ecological process, we won't keep our planet the way we need it, judging by the tone and style of answers to my earlier question, there's a sizeable proportion of people in the dark.
Our earth depends on life to moderate it's atmosphere, and the complex evolution at work is threatened by one species not interested in it.

Answer 1

You're not wrong. We are out of balance with our planet.

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure." - Agent Smith, The Matrix.

Answer 2

Evolution being factual depends on what kind of evolution. Yes, there is more than one kind, but the secularists in charge of the educational system rarely point that out.

Microevolution is change within a species. Basically, it is a localized change that creates new subspecies. This is what Darwin observed (with the finch beaks and all that). Microevolution is very much a proven fact, and natural selection is confirmed as the mechanism that drives it.

Macroevolution is the process that creates new species. This is what most of us think of when we hear the word "evolution." The trouble is, there's no SCIENTIFIC evidence that natural selection can create this level of change. Darwin actually published his theory before he was ready; he rushed to publication without examining key pieces of evidence in order to prevent someone else from taking credit for his work (research the history of Darwin if you don't believe me).

In current evolutionary theory natural selection is no longer the preferred mechanism driving macroevolutionary change. The current prevailing theory is punctuated equilibrium. The problem with PE is that the sudden mutations (punctuations) that interrupt the usual rate of slow change (equilibrium) make possible vast evolutionary changes within time spans far shorter than the currently accepted scale of geologic time, and a lot of scientists just aren't willing to let the longer time scale go.

Answer 3

I feel it strange that many people refuse to accept evolution on the basis that "man evolved from apes" is offensive.

Look at it this way, we ARE some kind of apes.

Presume that if some alien scientists were to study us. Which group do you think they would categorise us into? Fish? Bird? Cats? Of course it would be apes.

As D'archangle has pointed out, micro-evolution has occured and has been observed in lab. However, he was wrong to state that macroevolution is wrong because Darwin submitted his theory before he had finished his research. This is crap. Our scientific knowledge has progressed by leaps and bounds since the time of Darwin. Some of his hypothesis have been proven wrong, and were correct, while his natural selection theory have stood the test of time.

Many transitional fossils have been found to backup the claims of macroevolution. However, problem with creationist and ID-ist is, they refuse to accept these fossils as "transitional", and claimed that these are merely other species that have gone extinct without providing valid observations and explanations. When asked about what kind of criterias fossils should have before they would consider it as "transitional", they could not come up with anything. This shows a lot about their willingness to be open and discuss anything honesty.

To read more about the evidence for macroevolution, please refer to the link under source.

Answer 4

Why can't evolutionists and creationists agree that BOTH theories are part of the "real truth"? Why couldn't an evolutionary "big bang" process (or an intelligent designer, or Nature, or God) have "created" the universe and allowed all the species to evolve just as evolutionists assume? Man could have evolved from apes, who could have come from small land animals, who could have evolved from fish, who could have appeared after millions of years as particles of dust.
I think the real problem is that our tiny little human minds can't comprehend of something as massive as the universe - something that may have actually had no beginning, and may actually have no end. That's too big for us to conceive, so we have to find a way to put it into our context. Thus, the theories of evolution and creation, because both contend that there was an actual "beginning" to the universe. -RKO-

Answer 5

The creatinists and IDiots REFUSE to OBJECTIVELY look at ALL the evidence and draw inferences WITHOUT their (I am being POLITE) misguided preconceptions.

They argue that by looking at the same evidence they interpreted it differently. They are deceiving themselves and trying to deceive others! The inferences that can be drawn from the evidence leads to ONE logical conclusion, EVOLUTION is how things came to be the way they are, it continues now and will continue to shape the future. They refuse to admit that what they sc(p)reach is nothing other than make believe mythology that some old farts wrote two thousand years ago in an effort to take control.

Answer 6

I believe in Evolution

Answer 7

People who don't believe in evolution are beyond stupid.

The proof that evolution exists is that we can use science to reverse it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5245950.stm

Answer 8

yeah of course evolutions true, but man and women didn't evolve from apes

Answer 9

no....


stop....


please... you're breaking my ribs...


ha Ha ho ho

the planet is alive...
and humanity is the virus.....
global warming, is the earth's immune system inducing fever to kill us and heal the earth...

we have to evolve the ability to become infectious, and avoid the domestos galaxy at all costs