If you discovered real evidence that all the different life forms we know developed independently, would you be willing to share this evidence with the rest of the world, or would you try to pretend it didn't exist in order to preserve the myth that all life evolved from a single cell? Suppose your evidence included facts that showed that man did not, indeed, evolve from an earlier form of ape, but is actually an independent species? Would you come forward? It is your choice...share this new evidence with the scientific community, or destroy it and say nothing. What would you do?
(A similar question was asked of Christians yesterday, and it made me curious.)
2006-09-08 07:46:49 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Im interested in the truth, not in evolution, currently evolution has the evidence.
If God came and talked to me I'd tell everyone. Why hasn't she called?
2006-09-08 07:49:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Your bias is showing, though, by stating "... to preserve the MYTH that all life evolved from a single cell." Science doesn't do 'myths'... science explains facts. But to answer your question... of course. The Theory of Evolution, like all scientific theories, is FALSIFIABLE. The reason that evolution is a SUCCESSFUL theory is that people have been trying to prove it wrong (falsify it) for nearly 150 years... and FAILED.
If someone made a discovery such as you describe, that WOULD falsify evolution, and they would get the Nobel Prize, for sure.
You do know, of course, that it is highly unlikely that what you have described will come to pass. In fact, all relevant discoveries, observations and experiments related disciplines (biology, microbiology, genetics, organic chemistry, anthropology, etc.) have SUPPORTED the evolutionary paradidm, and added to the knowledge and understanding of evolutionary processes. So, with each passing day, the possibility that what you have described actually occurring grows more and more remote.
2006-09-08 15:11:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would absolutely present the evidence. Science is all about going where the evidence takes you. If someone comes up with solid evidence that humans weren't descended from apes, then I'd revise my beliefs accordingly.
It would have to be some pretty persuasive evidence, considering the tremendous amount of evidence already available that indicates we are, in fact, descended from apes. Currently, the available evidence - ranging from the fossil record to studies of genetics - overwhelmingly backs that hypothesis.
If you're interested in looking at the evidence, I highly recommend this website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
2006-09-08 14:59:55 · answer #3 · answered by Bramblyspam 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
An individual working in the scientific field might have a personal motive to hide evidence, but science as a whole has no motive to hide the truth.
You can believe whatever you want if it makes you happy. It will not change the truth. No matter how bad you want it to.
If you are happy and content with your religious beliefs, then why not leave things alone?
Don't look for answers to questions you don't really want answers to
2006-09-08 15:00:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If life developed indepedently, then why could it not have developed from a single cell or proteins?
If a scientist had this proof, then he would publish it. It wouldn't be his theory that was destroyed; it would be Darwin's. Then, there would be a new theory of evolution mechanisms with the new author's name to vilify. But, developing independently does not show that evolution is wrong.
2006-09-08 16:57:14 · answer #5 · answered by Your Best Fiend 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we start out in this life as a single cell. when the sperm fertilizes the egg. that's one cell. and as per proof man did not evolve, how do u explain all the humanlike fossils, each a little more human than the last, able to be connected to one another in a straight line of ascent? and the same w/other fossils of extinct animals whose descendants live among us today? and if evolution didn't occur, and creationism, or intelligent design is worth giving thought to, tell me, where are dinosaurs mentioned in any holy book?
2006-09-08 14:52:37 · answer #6 · answered by kelleygaither2000 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The nice thing about science is that it always strives to determine the truth and when new information becomes available and stands up to scrutiny, the change is readily accepted. With religion, no matter what the proof to the contrary, they will cling to their superstitions and delusions based on the rantings of men who lived long ago who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons.
2006-09-08 15:07:26 · answer #7 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"in order to preserve the myth that all life evolved from a single cell"
Gee, I wonder which side of the fence you are on.
The scientific method would require revealing new evidence, even if it is contradictory. The thing is, you are not going to find that evidence in your bible.
2006-09-08 14:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
I think our concept of the truth and time is flawed. If everything is required to seek it's own balance and creationism is just a faster form of the eventuality of evolution. We are still part of the Whole regardless of who, where, when and why we developed.Just for an example look at snowflakes.
2006-09-08 16:23:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to share my discovery. Science is all about provable truth.
The problem is your premise: you use the word "develop" but I think you're implying they're not evolving. What is evolution but adaptation? Over long periods of time the adaptation creates new branches in the family tree of that animal.
2006-09-08 14:53:10 · answer #10 · answered by Funchy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd reveal it, as well as switching to intelligent design theory (although I would think that aliens of some kind did it, not God, and certainly not the christian God). Evidence is evidence, and I'm looking for the truth, not trying to support a certain theory even if I know it's false.
However, so far, evidence disproving evolution does not exist. So I'm sticking with evolution for the moment.
2006-09-08 14:49:37 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋