evolution or creationism? which do u believe in?

Question

or if you believe in both that's fine too. give reasons.

Answer 1

Evolution, although I'm not sure "believe" is quite the right word.

The theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species.

Science is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not. What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

1. Vestigial structures

One example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.

Another example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.

2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.

Creationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution. This is true. However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.

3. The fossil record.

Although the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species. There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).

I want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).

There are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).

5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.

Creationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument. Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin. It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.

Any developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photographs of actual embryos taken by respectable scientists, NOT on Haeckel's drawings.

I find it rather funny that creationists try to argue that because one scientist was a fraud we should disregard all of developmental biology.

6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.

The main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.

Genetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?

Also, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.

7. Homologous structures.

Homologous structures are structures that typically have similar morphological features and, often, similar functions, and are the result of evolutionary change of a single structure present in the most recent common ancestor of the two species. A homoplastic structure is one that may have a similar function and superficial appearance to another structure but is the result of convergent evolution (i.e. it was not present in the most recent common ancestry).

The most obvious examples of homoplastic structures are things like a human's hand and a gorilla's hand. A more subtle example is the human hand and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve different functions, their bone structures are nearly identical. This is because the bat wing is a modified mammalian forelimb. In other word, the most recent common ancestor of the human and the bat was a mammal that had a forelimb with a bone structure similar to that of the modern human hand and other mammalian forelimbs. In humans this forelimb became the hand. In bats it became the wing.

An interesting example of homoplastic structures is the bird wing and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve similar functions (i.e. flying), they are anatomically quite different. They have quite different bone structures and operate according to different mechanical mechanisms. In fact, the bat wing is structurally more similar to human hand than the bird wing. Incidentally, the bird and bat wings are homoplastic as wings but homologous as forelimbs.

That is just one example. The animal kingdom is littered with examples of structures that serve different functions but have extremely similar morphological traits, and structures that serve similar functions but show clear evidence of distinct evolutionary origin.

8. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.

The point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.

9. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).

These are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.

There are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."


For more information, see the following links:
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml
http://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Or just do a google search for something like “evidence of evolution,” or check your local library.

Hey, you asked for reasons, you got it.

Answer 2

Both,
Co-existence

Have you ever read Voltaire? It makes you think. He was an outspoken opponent of the church, but believed that if there was a watch there must be a watchmaker (metaphor). All the science and archaeology supports evolution though. It has to exist. In my opinion either God created the universe and then evolution happened or he created the universe and all the evidence of evolution with it (both are pretty much the same).
Another thing I find interesting is the historical precedent for religion (it may seem blasphemous). Ancient Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian monotheism (sun god, wind god, etc.) seems ridiculous to us. In fact though they were just creating Gods to explain what they don't understand. In modern times we understand more (the sun, wind, etc.), but we don't understand the purpose of life, the beginning of life, etc. Isn't it a coincidence that those are the exact answers that God and major religions give us?

Once again, I believe in coexistence.

By the way, interesting question.

Answer 3

I believe in evolution. To me there is such overwhelming evidence from fossils and especially from molecular biology which shows that some genes (hemoglobin, myoglobin, cytochrome c) have been extensively conserved through may classes of organisms. Also humans and chimps are 98% identical in the sequence of their DNA. Is this just a coincidence? Couldn't be.

I also don't believe in God - mostly because I see no reason to. To those who say here is a watch, there must be a watchmaker - well that applies to things humans made, obviously, but life on earth was not made by humans so why does the "watchmaker" have to be a being rather than a process?

Answer 4

Both !!

Science, at least in my opinion, is a tool to learn and to discover God’s work. Evolution is not opposed to religion unless people make it so. I believe that the message of evolution is that we are just as Genesis told us, we are made out of the dust of the Earth and that we are united in this web of life with every other living creature on the planet, and I think that’s a fairly grand notion.

Answer 5

it rather is considerable in this form of debate to tell apart expertise from perception. in case you suspect some thing, then it rather is from loss of expertise. i understand Nigeria exists, i don't might desire to have faith it exists. i understand evolution is valid, i don't might desire to have faith in it. I realize it. Creationism although lacks any mechanism to return to expertise approximately it. the particular varieties of modern-day Creationism and clever layout although might nicely be disproven. that doesn't mean that each and each physique varieties of a Creationism might desire to be disproven, in simple terms the variety out interior the regular public at this 2d. i don't thoroughly reject that there could be a deity, it fairly is basically that it rather is beside the point. The life or non-life of a deity does not regulate my judgements or ethical possibilities. It easily merits no worship as no deity has produced any evidence of any effective contribution to humanity and easily the followers of the form of deities do not tutor that their deity merits any particular determination. i don't think of they meet interior the middle. whilst i became a Christian i attempted to cause them to fulfill. the undertaking is that the mathematics and technological expertise of evolution rather element to the absence of any author in any respect. there is not probably something to help the belief of a author, different than the bible and the koran. many faiths are without author. the undertaking with mixing them is that not something helps the creationist attitude different than faith. If the religion is long previous, then there is not something there.

Answer 6

Creation is ridiculous. Everyone should have knowledge of evolution.

I don't classify saying god created the universe itself as creationism, and this is valid, but ignoring scientific evidence is not >.>

Answer 7

Both. Why Couldn't God(s) have taken millions of our years to create the universe

Answer 8

Neither or maybe both. It may well be possible that we were made by some other force. Man should spend more time focusing on how we are going to stay here. (Not blow ourselves up with war)

Answer 9

i believe in evolutionist because native americans and asians share the same dna straind because asian migrate over in the america during the last ice age. creationist is a tough one because in the bible it states adam and eve. in order to support the theory we need to find noah's arc because the remain should be there according to the bible.

Answer 10

if this question is on science,then everyone here is gonna say evolution,seeing as creationism isn't a science.

Answer 11

lol we learned this in class today i beleive in my story i think as a person you should have one of youre own stories of the creation of earth. i dont think anyone can be pulled towards just one.