It's called Natural Selection. You can see that right now. Just look at how much variety there is in dogs or pegions. What about corn or wheat, same thing. These things just didn't appear out of thin air, ready to harvest. Humans made these. We encouraged one type to grow and discouraged another.
All of this variety happening over a few thousand years. Imagine what Artifical selection, the process of Evolution, taking over billions years be capable of. Just look around at the natural world. We may not look like a tree or slime mold, but at it's chemical heart, we are exactly the same.
Why do most humans feel this need to feel special? Is our self esteem so low that only a Universe made just for us will do. Every religion has it's own story on the creation of life. But every one of those is based in faith and no direct evidence. Science is the only one to have physical evidence of where all life came from. It's called Evolution.
2006-08-10 16:33:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I got that backwards, ARTIFICAL selction is what we humans do. NATURAL selction is nature at work.
2006-08-10 16:38:28 · update #1
Remember, Natural Selection takes BILLIONS of years. That is a very very very very long time. Did I say very? I meant very.
2006-08-10 16:39:23 · update #2
:)
1. Dogs, Pigeons, Corn, Wheat .... as you mention are not Natural Selection -- they are Intelligent & Artificial Selection.
2. Science has not proved macro*evolution.
I have spent hundreds of hours looking into the topic of evolution (reading books, articles; materials from both sides; dialoging with many individuals etc).
Invariably I have found that any proof that is offered is for micro*evolution, not macro*evolution.
--
Darwinism is basically a statement of Atheist Faith.
As Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould has stated, evolutionists "know" that Evolution has occurred; however, there is controversy about the mechanisms involved. In other words, evolutionists are arguing and fighting about the mechanisms involved.
This is code-speak for the fact that evolutionists "believe" that evolution happened without God, but they dont really know exactly how. They have a bunch of conjectures and speculations, but they do not have empirical proof of atheistic macro*evolution.
--
There is no evidence that proves Atheistic MacroEvolution (without Intelligent Design)...
I used to believe in Evolution. However, over a period of time I have grown skeptical of the claims of Macro*Evolution... this is largely due to the weakness of the evidence for Macro*Evolution, and the fact that the evidence, rationally interpreted does not support the overarching claims made by Macro*Evolutionists...
For scientific and intellectual critiques of evolution, see http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/00.html .
Is Evolution a FACT? Not really -- not in the macro*evolutionary sense. See http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/evofaq2.html for relevant discussion.
---
I find that the vast majority of people who believe in evolution, do so by faith and authority.
Faith -- because atheistic macro*evolution is a faith; and Authority -- because they believe in the word of "experts" in the field, rather than truly understanding the evidence themselves.
Cordially,
John
2006-08-10 16:37:10 · answer #1 · answered by John 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I totally agree. I think people think they are the center of the universe, or they want to think this because it makes them feel important, or like they have a meaning to their life, that they are not just another small part of the entire universe. They need to take things in perspective though... they may not be importance in the grand scheme of the universe, or even on the planet, or even in their country... but they are important in the realm of their community and their family. People need to embrace that role as their purpose in life instead of looking towards the sky for man-made (and man-made thousands of years ago) meanings.
2006-08-10 16:40:25 · answer #2 · answered by Stephanie S 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Evolution came from science and reserch, Faith come from Holy Books and feeling. Two different sources, which one to choose ?
Thats the answers
2006-08-10 16:43:00 · answer #3 · answered by NoBody 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
lack of understanding info. I truly be a socrates disillusioned than a fool satisfied. lack of understanding is comparing black and white without understanding of white (Plato) and that i really let the scar of bitter actuality hang-out me invariably than keep up myself in a kind of mutual passivity with persons and flase complacency interior myself.
2016-11-24 19:30:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
to address gravol's "answer", there is no argument. There is only proof:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Oh, and when you're done reading all of that proof of evolution (yeah, like creationists care about educating themselves!), I'd like to point out that there's not a single ounce of EVIDENCE that contradicts evolution.
and before anyone says it, unknowns do not constitute evidence. they are simply unknowns
2006-08-10 16:41:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no one argues that plants and animals can change.
the big argument lies can it change completely. Can you make a fish turn in to a lizard or a lizard into a bird.
that is where the conflict lies
*starts to back away because he is sick of this argument
2006-08-10 16:38:26 · answer #6 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
evolution, I don't think so.
They say we evolved from monkeys. If thats
true why are there still monkeys?
2006-08-10 17:16:36 · answer #7 · answered by sloth665 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋