Evolution believable?

Question

People point to mutations in bugs with legs growing out their heads or something to that nature and say "proof of evolution." But really, comeon, for evolution to work, wouldn't we have seen SOME change in the past 4 thousand years?

For evolution to work, we have to be contantly mutating gaining something in at least a few of them, but the only mutating we see are vile and harmful, yet they remain.... which is against the teaching of evolution.

Might say, "well medical tech" or something like it, but yet 4000 years ago our tech wasn't snot.

I hear some arguments that we are the pinacle of evolution, which also doesn't make sense... there is always room to grow.

I am VERY serious and trying to understand the argument supporting evolution. Right now, it seems only like an excuse against religion...

Tell me, what are your real thoughts on how this works please and thank you.

... btw, attack my grammar/spelling, say i stupid, or call me ignorant(which i am, but i not asking what i am I am looking for answer to question) i ignore u.

What I believe/don't believe and if i like ur answer or not doesn't matter, i giving honest thought to.(if not fitting the above list)

Answer 1

Sorry, I can't tell you why I think it works, because I don't believe that it works. Too many holes in it..Only theory...

Answer 2

Two things before I start:

1) Don't try this (Quote) Might say "well medial tech" (EndQuote)

You miss by miles what someone who happens to believe evolution would say.

2) Evolution does not say anything about religion, it is fundamentally compatible with it, and won't excuse anyone for anything.

Ok, the meat of your questions!

1) You think THAT is proof of evolution? Take a look at biology - evolution forms the base for basically everything we see. The reason it is so widely accepted is because of how fundamentally accurate it is.

2) Evolution requires only the normal differences in population - for instance, some people are a little taller, some shorter, most people nearish to some sort of average - I would LOVE to hear someone explain how not everyone bieng the same height is "vile and harmful" as you put it.

3) Things have changed in the past 4000 years, as much as we would expect.... take a look at rice and wheat, for example.

4) Arguments that we are the pinnacle of evolution were made by fools hundreds of years ago. They are no longer accepted, and have not been for many, many years.

I think the problem is that you have heard about evolution from those who don't like it, and thus paint it in an unrealistic light. Evolution, I will say in closing, has no more to do with religion than the acceleration due to gravity.

Answer 3

The short answer is no. That's like saying you lifted weights twice this week and your biceps are still the same size, so lifting must not work.

Evolution happens on VERY LARGE timescales, and only then when there is sufficient pressure to force natural selection. Little or nothing happens if the species isn't being pushed to change. For the past few thousand years humans have mostly dominated their environments.

Sharks, turtles, alligators and some fish are virtually the same as 3, 20, or even 90 MILLION years ago. Why should we sweat over 4000 years? That's a very small period of time.

If you honestly want to know, read a book about evolution. There is still a lot we don't know about it, but your question has simple and uncontroversial answers.

Answer 4

As with most things in life, people are uneducuated in science and genetics. Especially in this country. First off, evolution is happening right now. All around you. Just look at the variety of dogs, cows, corn and wheat. That is called Artifical Selection, we humans have done that for a few thousand years. Now, look at Natural Selection, something that nature has 4 billion years to evolve.

That is why there is such variety on this planet. In that very very very very long time, all life evolved from a single instance. We may not look like an oak tree, but at the most basic level, we are exactly the same. Religion tries to make you feel special when Science makes you see the truth. For some it is hard to accept but once you do, you feel better for it.

Answer 5

Evolutions is very believable. Who says we haven't changed? I mean, we don't have an image of ourselves from 3,000 years ago, just written records, some icons and such. Oh, yeah, some mummies and such.

I think that evolution is also not done very fast, so 4,000 years for nature is not that long term. How long did dinosaurs lasted? I think it was for a lot more time. That we're the pinnacle of evolution, I think that, at this time, we're right on. Yes, maybe in the next 3,000 years we might evolve to a totaly different species, different brain capability, and body.

About evolution and religion, I think this:

The bible was written when we didn't have much knowledge of the world. I think that most of it was inspired by God, and some just by men. Anyway, let's assume that all the worlds and phrases were spoken by god and written.

What would the jews of that time have felt when Moses came and told to them: ..well, about nth years ago, there was this big explosions, in which millions of atoms (btw, what is an atom, they would probably ask) were created, ... big bang theory, or whatever, and then, this and that happened. It would probably just be too much for them to believe. So, basically, the 6 days creation of the world is just a very brief description of what probably happened, not a detailed view of it. Think of it, on the first day the earth was created (big bang), then water and earth were separated (oceans and continents), life started on the sea, then on earth, and at last came man. It was a pretty high executive resumee ;) That they could easily phatom, all the rest it would probably be too much for that time.

Answer 6

Evolution is said to take millions of years and moves in a pattern of long periods of little change and rapid periods of quick change. Evolution is based on change out of necessity so where there is not need for an organism to change or adapt to a different environment it won't. If we are considering human evolution within the past 4000 years (which mind you is a very small time frame) you may well not see any noticable signs of the process as there has been little need for change. Remember the whole survival of the fittest and natural selection theories? Well the fittest in human terms is not necesarliy the strongest we select breeding partners for may reasons including intellect and wealth.

Answer 7

Follow the links below to examples of speciation!

First link tells of the greenish warbler (a songbird) in the himalayas' it's a "ring species," meaning that there are several seperate colonies around a geographic area. Each colony has a different song, different markings on the wings, and other differences, but the birds will interbreed with neighboring communities. They will not, however, breed with colonies from further away, (colony A will breed with colony B, B will breed with C, C will breed with D, but A will not breed with D) and they show characteristics of being different species.

Link 2 tells of the mosquitos in London's underground, which went underground when the tubes were being built some hundred years ago. On the surface, they fed on birds, but after they moved underground they evolved to feed on mammals, they will not interbreed with the surface mosquitos, and the differences between the two populations are so great that they are well on their way to becoming a seperate species.

Look at the rest of the links, too, at least skim one or two of them to get an idea of what they're saying, I know it's a lot, but it's good information to have.

Answer 8

Humans have drastically changed in the last 4000 years. We are Homo Sapain Sapains. Humans have lost the use of the Lympthic system. Also humans have gained increasily higher brain capacity. Think about all the evolution that happens around you. Bugs mutate and gain ressitance from pesicides, new dieseases and viruses evolve. Humans havent changed alot due to the fact of survial of the fittest idea hasnt been used since humans have gained total domiance of the world.

Answer 9

You clearly don't understand evolution.

No, there would not have to be a change in the past 4000 years which isn't even 1/1000 of an eyeblink in evolutionary time.

Further, evolution is not posited to occur in the absence of environmental isolation and pressure, neither of which has been significant in human beings for some time.

Your question really suggests that you need to educate yourself on the topic. You are simply not informed enough to form a valid opinion.

No offense, but that's the cold hard truth.

Answer 10

If you accept that humans have altered plants and animals by selective breeding over the last 4,000 years it is not that much of a jump to think that nature could do the same thing with a million times that long. Humans have had very little problem producing change, so why should it be so hard to believe that a long, slow climate change, for example, would weed out individuals that could not cope but advance the genes of those that could? Thus, furrier bears, or fatter whales. Its not that hard to understand. Is there any scientific evidence for religion?

"Only a theory" yeah, like the atomic theory, like gravity, like electricity--just theories.

Answer 11

Firstly your assuming that all Christan's are literalists, while this is popular in the USA the majority of Christan's world wide be live in evolution. You apparently have done no research , we have had examples of many creatures evolving in far shorter times moths (changing from whit to black and back again to deal with pollution) and Deer (Lare poit deer have started to gentic drift to smaller horns as theri environement, ie hunters shoot large point deer). While mostly not caused by natural selection the different breeds of dogs work by the same evolutionary process.
Perhaps you should star from reading Darwins oragin of teh Speicies it is a very accesable book based on his observations and the secondly ask your self what eveidence that Genisies was meant to be taken literaly?