Evolutions prove yourself?

Question

I admit that Christianity requires tons of faith, but why do evolutionist say they have "facts" when in fact evolution cannot be recreated, no one has seen it happen. Why are there no transitional forms and if you say there are how come there is no half rat-bat? And according to your theory evolution takes place over long periods of time but if that is true the half rat-bat would be easy prey when it started to grow wings. It couldn't run as well so it would get caught according to natural selection, so your theories defeat each other if natural selection is true then animals in the process of evolving would be easy to eat because they would not be suited for life in a ground hole (like a rat) or life hanging upside down (like a bat). If you want to call me some pointless stupid name feel free to do so, but back up your name calling with a theory proving me wrong. If you just want to call me a name or make an angry comment then it proves how faulty and unreal evolution is as a theory.

Answer 1

people dont want to see things as it is. they have trouble facing reality.

Answer 2

Let's tackle this one in order...
"I admit that Christianity requires tons of faith, but why do evolutionist say they have "facts" when in fact evolution cannot be recreated, no one has seen it happen." This is wrong. We've witnessed many evolutionary changes in this century. Virii, bacteria, and birds have all exhibited what is called "microevolution". Google "galapagos finches" for the reports on that.

"Why are there no transitional forms...". This is because many of microevolutions changes are to tissue that will not fossilize. You, like most creationists are not applying logic to your arguement. First of all, evolution is evolution. The micro and macro prefixes are a result of faith based groups trying to cling to the old beliefs, and attempting to use language to disprove science. Macroevolution is basically the culmination of microevolutionary change. However, because as I stated before, a large portion of the changes will not survive fossilzation, the change seems to be "miraculous", and the application of logic gets thrown out the window.

"how come there is no half rat-bat? And according to your theory evolution takes place over long periods of time but if that is true the half rat-bat would be easy prey when it started to grow wings. It couldn't run as well so it would get caught according to natural selection, so your theories defeat each other if natural selection is true then animals in the process of evolving would be easy to eat because they would not be suited for life in a ground hole (like a rat) or life hanging upside down (like a bat)." You're trying to argue in a circle here, with only half of the information. Not all members of the species will evolve in the same way. Look at the skin of humans in equatorial regions and that of people closer to the artic region. More direct sunlight resulted in darker skin. Evolution and natural selection show that if the change isn't beneficial to the overall survival of the species, then that species will die out...plain and simple. If the wings developed in such a way that they impeded hunting or avoiding predators, then yes, those that were evolving would not survive. You're making an assumption on how those wings would evolve. Using a flying squirrel as an example, say the wings were actually extra skin, the change wouldn't really be harmful or noticeable until used.

Please, do some research into basic biology. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution. The research is done in an objective way. Most of the research done by "creation scientists" has the conclusion made, with the facts needing to be spun in order to fit it. Science works in the opposite manner. The facts and findings are analyzed, and a conclusion drawn after testing is complete.

Answer 3

Here we go again. Did you make up that thing with a rat-bat yourself? You just prove how little you know about evolution.

Bats didn't evolve from today's rats, that would require some sort of time loop. They evolved from a mammal that doesn't exist anymore. Other species also evolved from that mammal.

If you're having trouble thinking of a half-flying animal, look at the small mammals that jump, then glide through the air to the next tree. That's right, they jump furthuer with their flaps of skin, but they can't fly. Bats are simply mammals that could jump-glide further and further until they could actually gain height by flapping their wings. So that whole 'bats running' thing disregards trees altogether.

Evolution is in fact quite observable, just like geology. Just not in real time. It is also a *scientific* theory that produces results. Now I'd like to hear about a competing theory (preferably a scientific one, not just an idea) that actually produces results. But there isn't one. You just tried to poke holes in evolution, but you didn't offer a better explanation.

Answer 4

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

See here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Evolution has been observed directly in the wild and in the lab. There is no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution". These are creationist straw-men used to explain away adaptations. It doesn't seem to occur to creationists that if a species adapts enough, it will gradually change its form noticably, eventually only vaguely resembling its ancestor. Take a look at dogs, for instance. They came from a wolf-like ancestor, but look at the variety that human breeding programs have created.

For details on observed evolution, go here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
and here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Answer 5

Evolution entails trial and error. something, obviously, you are not familiar with. much easier to say that some "thing" simply snapped his fingers and "wished" everything into creation. yes, very logical and chock full of evidence right? evolution is on the grand scale of time. You, being simple minded, cannot "see" these things happening since your a*ss will be long dead when they do. humans have only been in existence for a fraction of time in relation to the world. I know you believe the world is 5000 years old so I guess that doesn't leave much room for negotiations or anything like that. truth is, SCIENCE has proven that the earth is very much older than the bible claims. The fossil records (bones) that we have show transformations from one critter to the next. some died out, others went to live on. You're quite contempt in the fact that you won't believe in this since we can't "prove" or recreate it. neither can you in terms of your god and that archaic loser manual you call the bible. all you have is an outdated book, edited and revised over hundreds of years all for your viewing pleasure. It is proven that those in the church and other political figured of that time removed books from the bible. Why is that? guess you never bothered to figure that one out right? if it IS the word of god, who has the authority to remove chapters of the bible? Lemme guess, you don't believe in what they say only in what you think right? hmm......guess that's why there are SOOOOOOOO many of you claiming you know who god is when the fact of the matter is you don't know anything, can't prove anything and need people of logic and inteliigence to back up YOUR claims on a factless wonder called god.

your analogy of the rat-bat is truly ingenious and could only come from an idiot with a 3 IQ like yourself. you are outgunned and way over your head. if you had any brains left you'd figure out that evolution has more concrete facts than your bible does. And the only way you even have some evidence of some of the things that happened in the bible is because of science, not from wishful thinking.

Answer 6

Evolution happened over a long period of time. The changes were minute at each point. The so-called "missing link" does not exist. As a species finds itself in a new surrounding it has to adapt to survive. Many species that didn't died out. Survival is tough. As far as a rat-bat is concerned, how do you know it doesn't exist? We still haven't found all the species that exists in the world. They are still finding them. Evolution is more believable than creation anyday.

Answer 7

You should really learn more before you speak ... science has TONS of transitional forms in the fossil record. Nope, no rat-bat, then again rats didn't come from bats nor did bats come from rats, they evolved side by side from earlier species. We do, however, have fish-lizards and lizard-birds and pig-deer and even (gasp) apeish humans. No faith required at all. If you actually learn something about it it is as clear as the nose on your still evolving face.

Answer 8

Interesting point. I've actually been leaning away from macroevolution as a theory, but I haven't read any really meaningful arguements for macroevolution. I'd have to say that evolutation takes a long period of time to develop "Hidden genes." That is to say, one entity has no wings, and its babies have wings, but its baby having wings may exist because of many generations of developing the capacity to have wings.

But hopefully a more scientific explanation will post links to "Here's the proof for evolution" area.

Answer 9

you are forgetting that each species has developed to fit a certain niche.bats evolved to live in caves, and the roof was safer than the floor and rats evolved to fit into small spaces, and tunnels. just like people along the equator have more melanin in their skin than people from near the poles. They developed to fill a need. the intermediary species have simply been eaten or left in places we just haven't found yet, or dissolved and eroded with time. you might want to actually read a few books on the subject, instead of listening to your preacher who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Answer 10

Who said the rat and the bat were connected, firstly. Second, microevolution has been proven. Scientists have even proven evolution on a computer for A.I. Of course, for every proof, their is a counter-proof, so that is why it is a Theory and not a Law.

Answer 11

I'm a Christian...

But I'm NOT stupid.

Evolution makes a LOT of sense!

It makes sense in living things, and also inanimate objects.
Every notice why you don't see a lot of BUGGY WHIPS around?
It's because they are not USEFUL anymore.

Look, drop your Rosary for just a second... and just think about it.

Things that adapt survive. This isn't ROCKET SCIENCE.

And...the reason there is not HALF RAT-BAT... is because THEY didn't survive! (this really isn't that hard).

If you want to hawk Christianity... at least pick something that REALLY HAS FLAWS... to debunk.

Actually I have 2 real good arguments against EVOLUTION... but YOU didn't advance a single one.