If Evolution is so easily observable...?

Question

...then why hasn't it been recognized for thousands of years?
Science has already established that mankind has been highly intelligent and developed for thousands of years.
(see http://www.s8int.com/ )
So if Evolution is so easily observable, in nature, as it's proponents claim, then why has it only been recognized as such (in their fantasies), in the last 150 years?
NOTE: i will only reply to intelligent responses.

TO ALL YOU GENIUS EVOLUTIONISTS/DARWINISTS...
Let's see you intelligently answer THESE questions...

This might be the most oft asked question to athiests, but i have yet to see one intelligently answer it...

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Besides that, ponder these questions...
Is it possible to have a copy without there first being an original?
Can a complex system create itself?
Do blueprints draw themselves?
Does a house (or computer for that matter), build itself?
How come chimps never evolved?
Why is the most intelligent animal a bird?
How did gases form into solid matter?
Where did the gases come from?
What intelligence made them evolve into complex and intricate life forms?
Where did gravity come from?
What comprises the vacuum of "empty" space?
Why can't science discover the source of energy?
Why didn't ants evolve?
How did single-cell organisms evolve into complex and intricate organs like the eye, brain and nervous system?

You said...
"From how I understand it, the evidence of evolution comes primarily from the fact that many species of animals share very similar characteristics (lions to tigers and cougars, fish to sharks, domestic dogs to wolves, etc...) "

Okay, if this is evidence of "MACRO-evolution, then why is it all dog breeds will revert BACK to their wolf nature, appearance and characteristics, when left lone?
If natural selection is evidence that species "EVOLVE" into a new species, then why do they always revert BACK to their original wild state?
i.e.; cats, tropical fish, etc. etc, etc...
Hybrids have never proven MACRO-evolution.
On the contrary, it DISPROVES IT.
Minor changes due to adaptation of a new or different enviroment, only prove MICRO-evolution.
One species chaning into another has never been observed.
And if it was ture, then there'd be literally MILLIONS of intermediate species...yet there is not even one.

And please do not bring up any isolated, rare cases of cross-breedings in the wild. i.e.; polar bear-grizzly or horse donkey or lion tiger.
Because, in the first place, if your rediculous theory were true, there would not be a few isolated cases...there would be MILLIONS.
Most rare cases have only been recent anyways...and most are due to extreme changes in climate.
Mutations and most all hybrids are always STERILE/INFERTILE.
They do not survive past a few generations.
So you cannot use that to prove your fantasy...i mean, theory either.

Evolutionists, read & weep...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

Answer 1

Strictly speaking, if you follow the protocol of the scientific method, 1. evolution is not a theory but rather a hypothesis because its results are not reproducible experimentally; and 2. no, it is not observable.

Answer 2

Well the problem is you immediately assume that the people thousands of years back understood the world in the same way that we do now.

From how I understand it, the evidence of evolution comes primarily from the fact that many species of animals share very similar characteristics (lions to tigers and cougars, fish to sharks, domestic dogs to wolves, etc...) leading to the theory that these animals with similar characteristics must have had descended from common ancestors. Further evidence comes from the relationships and similarities and/or differences between extinct animals (dinosaurs and mammoths) and their so-called modern relatives (crocodiles and elephants).

Now think back...did the ancient people really care or know that lions and tigers were related, or that species of fox found in North America were related to the foxes of Europe? If we can go further...did the people who found fossils in those ancient days think of these bones as dinosaurs, or as giants and dragons? Obviously no. Only when organized scientific research and study developed (which was in the last 300 or so years) did we start pieceing together the clues that brought us the theory of evolution as it stands today.

In short my friend...yes mankind has been intelligent and developed since our first true ancestors (the true humans) came to be, but since those thousands of years of existence they had neither the tools (scientific research) nor the desire, or inclination to actually study how animals with similar characteristics came to be or how come certain apes share some distinctively human traits with us.

Perhaps evolution can be readily observed now by scientists with volumes of data spanning the whole globe...but I seriously doubt a man 4000 years ago with only the knowedge of his home and the nearby surroundings would be able to tell whether there was evolution.

Answer 3

To answer your question, because most people of the past thought like you do now, that only a God could create something as spectacular as a lifeform. Most new and groundbreaking truths are/have been surpressed by religious ideologs that have no intrest in disturbing the current order of thier closed little worlds. I suppose you think the world is still flat, that the earth is the center of the Universe, and that things are made only of Fire, Air, Water, and Earth.

The fact of the matter is that we now have a higher number of bacteria strains that are resistant to our older treatments than ever before, that is natural selection/evolution in action. There are some microscopic creatures that can eat and nurish themselves completely from crude oil, that did not exist 120 years ago when we first started pumping oil in massive amounts. New species of trees have come to fruition in my own lifetime. How can one deny that evolution exists is my question? Mabye there is a "force" behind it, maybe not. I'm but a mere mortal, but understand that, and know that I may not have all the answers instead of stummbling blindly thinking that I do.

Answer 4

First off, science is a process of learning. There are many evidences to support evolution. I.E. 98% of the DNA found in monkeys matches humans. Studying the phylogeny trees, you will clear up much misconception of evolution. As to why it is so hard for some to understand, it is simple. Don't be so narrow minded with time. People look at NOW and think it has been this way forever. Well, it hasn't. Fossils prove that. If you look at the big picture, the times of homo-sapiens is very short.
One last thought, be open minded to everything and critique it. Perhaps 10,000 pieces of evidence isn't enough for someone to question Genesis account of creation. People want to believe in fairy tales more than science. To each his own, and I respect (most) everyones opinion.

Be good.

Answer 5

I don't think we have been watching for millions of years, or even thousands, as evolution was not found till Darwin. We can see bacteria evolve, but people like you stay in fantasy land and deny it. Evolution of animals takes longer, as we live longer, and are more complex than bacteria. If you want to see evolution happen, look into the fossil record, or live a million years.

Answer 6

Your "question" is as inept as this: "If Fermat's Last Theorem was so easily proven then why wasn't it known for thousands of years?" Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean others should share your ignorance.

Given that your "question" is spoken from an ignorance of evolution, you will be laughably unable to determine what is an "intelligent answer".

Additional:

You proved my point. Instead of addresing the issues, you think the volume of your tears and the volume of your wailing will win.

Answer 7

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You argue out of your own ignorance.
Evolution HAS BEEN observed even in the past 10 years.

Here's a tip:

Before you make statements about evolution, you might want to actually EDUCATE yourself about it. (and not from some fundie site)

That way, you won't make any more statements that are 100% false and embarass yourself further.


Now, the evidence to contradict you is in the link provided.

I severely doubt that you have the courage or scientific background to read it, but if you ever grow up, it's there for you.

Answer 8

I don't believe in evolution, per se. I don't believe that we slowly evolved from apes. I DO believe in adaptation and the survival of the fittest.
I'm a Pagan though, so you probably won't take my answer seriously.
For the record, I don't believe in Creationism or the Alien theory either.

Answer 9

If the theory of evolution is correct, then death did not come by Adam as Paul states in his epistles; rather, death is the mechanism by which man has evolved. The theory of natural selection is dependent upon the assumption that there was death in the world before the appearance of man and that death played a part in the development of mankind, since man would have been the product of the process of the survival of the fittest. Thus, the theory of natural selection places the origin of death prior to the existence of man. On the other hand, the Christian view of redemption is that man's fall introduced sin and physical death into the world and that Jesus Christ redeemed us from these effects of the fall through his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. According to the Christian view, death resulted from the fall of man. If this is so, then how could man have evolved through a process of natural selection, since death is the mechanism through which the survival of the fittest must necessarily occur?

Natural selection could not possibly have taken place apart from the mechanism of physical death inherent in the process of the survival of the fittest. If men evolved as a result of this process, then physical death could not have resulted from man's fall. Rather, man's tendency to die would have been inherited from his immediate forbears. Yet, the Christian faith is based upon the recognition that death took place as a result of the fall of man. Man must therefore have existed before death. Paul wrote in Romans 5:12 that, "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned." The Christian message is that Christ has redeemed mankind from sin and physical death. If Adam did not bring these things into the world, then Jesus Christ could not have acted as the "second Adam" to redeem mankind from these things. Paul wrote in I Cor. 15:21-23:For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming.
Thus, the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the Christian view of redemption.

Answer 10

Because thousands of years ago was pre-historic times. Man had no way of exploring the different continents, no scientific knowledge to compare their observations with and very crude methods of recording. (cave paintings) There are millions of pieces of evidence supporting evolution. No evidence at all supporting biblical theories.