why do you believe in evolution?

Question

Lets put one thing straight first.
PURE Science and PURE Religion do not contradict each other
Evolution is a Scientific THEORY it is NOT Pure Science.
God has Created Rules and follows them.
God is Logical he does not contradict himself.
There is only ONE True Religion.

Evolution is a theory that all living creatures evolved from some a common evolutionary ancestor.
Evolution also states that this creature evolved from rocks and rain. the reverse steps are
animals and plants - single celled organism - prehistoric cell and mitocondria and chloroplasts - ooze that contains building blocks of life - rocks and acid rain - lava and gases from volcanoes.
that is what unpure-science claims you evolved from
Evolutionary Theory also is missing too many pieces to make a detailed map or picture. like making a puzzle with only 0.1% to 1% of the pieces. doesn't work period.

and since religion gives the only other alternative i'll have to go with the belief that we ARE created by God.
after all how does a quatinary biological programing language (DNA) that works actually come into existance by accident.
there is too much order in the universe for it to have just happened.
and even though there is the theory that an organism arrived on earth via a comet or asteroid it still had to come from some where and if you are saying it evolved it still came from a rock.

And by the way I am a scientist by heart and am very fluent in many areas in science. I like to red a lot. but I do not believe in all the theories they com up with.

after all if evolution did exist why have they found a living fish that they had believed was extinct for a few million years wouldn't it have evolved???

its only pure if it is true
if is is not a fact is is a theory only
and theories are false till proven true.

Answer 1

I don't believe in evolution. Evolution states that everything/everyone came from nothing. Something can't come from nothing (there are scientific laws that prove that). And from that thing came everything and person. If someone believes that, it's a belief not based on fact or science. Evolution isn't science, it's a religion! Life is way to complex to even think about including evolution the source of life. Christianity has much more scientific and historical backing than evolution.

Answer 2

You seem to have a great deal of misconceptions about evolution.

Creationists claim everything was made from dirt, not much different than claiming things came from a rock. Not that evolution says anything about how abiogenesis happened anyway.

Evolution has nothing to do with why we see order in the universe. "Just Happened" is a strawman. We see order because of Mathematical Selection Effects. We see order because reality is incredibly vast and only in locally complex, ordered regions can beings like ourselves evolve. How did your God "Just Happen" by the way? are you going to be a hypocrite and ignore that question?

What you just said was the most moronic statement ever made on Yahoo Answers. You said and I quote: "theories are false until proven true" Really??? What day did the earth become round. Don't you think the earth switching from flat to round would have been noticable???

Answer 3

I agree the theory of evolution is just a theory, and not perfect. However, there's a lot more rational evidence to support evolution...such as the fact the human body is water and minerals, and the same holds true for every living being on the planet...than I find supporting the idea some diety coughed humanity out one day (the judeo-christian-muslim theory) or any of the other religious theories I've found. If I find sufficient rational (ie, not a traditional belief that has not been tried or tested scientifically for accuracy) proofs to support the theory of creation I will consider changing. The fact is, the alternative theory of creationism seems to have no rational proof for it, only the hope of several people and that's not enough for me to take it as a scientific law. I'd suggest christian scientists get cracking and start some work...if creationism is true, the evidence will be out there!

Answer 4

I think you are overstating the platform of evolution. When some people, no doubt, prefer to extrapolate data into the theory that aggressive ooze one day crawled up onto land, I don't think that fits the observational facts. As you would no doubt agree, so-called scholarly debates in the anthropological world sound more like cat fights than science. By comparison, even psychology seems like an exact science!
However, if we don't extrapolate much beyond what we see, we know that various organisms have adapted to their surrounding. No person of God can have anything against such observables and I assume you don't either. Close to me, we had a study on scallops in the bay and we were able to compare shells from 400 years ago to the modern day shells; it turns out that they have developed extra ridges: to me that's evolution and the result is scientific.
When we get back to the development of man, that's when the fun starts. Although I admit that I enjoy reading anthropology and listening to the fascinating arguments, the extrapolation of events becomes more science fiction than science,as you point out.
However, this is not to diminish the scientists' studies in these regards. God should be satisfied that we are curious and want to study the facts of our discoveries as best we can. The fact that we will always have a lot of questions for Him is immaterial. Personally, I want to know why he created the dinosaurs.

Answer 5

I don't believe you are actually fluent in science as you claim.

Evolution is an ongoing process, yes, but if a species fits a niche ideally (with the least amount of competition) then there would not be a need to further evolve. Alligators and crocs have been virtually unchanged for milions of years. It simply means that they are the king of their habitat, and have no need of further changes.

And once again, the Theory of Evolution is a separate theory than that of Abiogenesis. Evolution explains the diversity of species, and abiogenesis explains the origin of organic complex macromolecules from inorganic compounds.

Answer 6

First: Scientific theories are models that describe known phenomenon. The theory of evolution is the best model we have for the fact evolution happens, just as the theory of relativistic gravity is the best model we have for the fact of gravity, even though we know relativity is incomplete if not wrong (doesn't incorporate quantum gravity).

Second: There is a LOT of evidence for evolution. There are plenty of transitional fossils discovered in the last 50 years. When Darwin formalized his HYPOTHESIS, we didn't have nearly the evidence we do now. Few scientists believe Darwin was right on the money -- we know some things he was just plain wrong on, and have corrected the increasingly accurate model. When we started being able to map DNA, we got a HUGE burst of information supporting the evolutionary model.

Fourth: The five base pairs of DNA & RNA (Thymine in DNA being replaced by Uracil in RNA) are found naturally in comets and other organic space matter, along with amino acids. The chemistry of carbon makes the existence of these chemicals highly likely in an organic environment. Further, if you take raw carbon and carbon dioxide, put it into a sealed container with methane, ammonia, and some choice small amounts of oxygen, and put electric arcs through the mix, you will see this black sludge build up in the container -- it will contain all the building blocks of life -- DNA bases, RNA bases, and the amino acids.

Biology has no problem with abiogenesis. When the concept of abiogenesis was penned, saying, "Life only comes from life," science still was operating under the assumption of divine creation. We now know that the basics of life can in fact spontaneously occur in carbon rich and energy rich environments. Every step required to go from non-life to life has been done in the laboratory, such as the step I mentioned above with the container of pre-life earth-like environment. No one has put the steps together for moral reasons -- If we did create new life from scratch, we'd have a new evolutionary tree on our hands and we cannot justify the risk to the existing evolutionary tree, even with the best of environmental controls.

Your arguement that we have .1% to 1% of the facts needed to support evolution is a number you pulled out of your butt. No one, not even the evolutionary scientists, know what percent of all there is to know about evolution we know. If we did, there'd be little reason to continue researching because we'd already know the limits.

-------------- Added ------------

Notice that common use and technical use definitions of 'Theory' are dramatically different. In a scientific context, it is an explaination for "KNOWN FACTS OR PHENOMENA" (emphasis mine). In this, creationism is a theory in the non-technical sense -- it's a total guess that doesn't relate to facts. Evolution is a theory in the technical sense -- it's a darned good model for phenomenon we KNOW is happening.

From dictionary.com:
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

IN SHORT -- your assertion that you are a scientist is a crock and a lie. You don't even know the basic terminology or methodology, so how can you call yourself a scientist?

Answer 7

So I’ll start by putting one thing straight, just like you did. PURE is a subjective word. And, if I may provide a counterexample to your point? The age of the earth. What is the PURELY RELIGIOUS biblical date of the conception of earth? As I recall it is around 6000 years old? And what is the PURELY SCIENTIFIC dating of the age of the earth? 4.5 billion years old… already, they conflict. Furthermore, science does not strive for an ultimate, unassailable truth. Science strives for tentative truths with overwhelming supporting evidence, expecting change to occur as new information arises. Now… to answer your question:

I hate it when people throw evolution around as a theory. IT IS A THEORY AND A FACT! There are two types of evolution. There is MICRO AND MACROEVOLUTION. Microevolution has been proven and is observable. Microevolution is as factual as science can get. Need proof of microevolution? How about the classic monarch butterfly example? The monarchs used to perch on beech trees… Now, the species was predominantly white, as beech is white, and the dark colored butterflies almost always got picked off the tree by predators… that is, until industrial revolution occurred and soot covered the once white beech trees so they became a grayish black color. Sure enough, many years later, the monarchs were predominantly a blackish-grey color… micro-evolution. Small changes over a short period of time.

Macroevolution is a theory, and as such, has not been proven fact. Admittedly, as you say, there are some holes in it. However, there is an abundance of fossil and genetic evidence. With evolution, scientists were able to predict intermediary fossils that were later found. And can you explain why a recent comparison of human and chimpanzee DNA base units revealed only a 1.2% difference? And the evolution of the differences can be traced in the genetic code… in fact, the gene that enables us to talk that chimps are lacking has been found to STILL exist in some families with severe speech disabilities. Don’t forget Lucy, either… So why do I believe in evolution over creationism? Evolution has a key to these questions (and more, but I don’t want to post you an essay) and can answer them. Furthermore, microevolution lends believability to macroevolution. Microevolution is smaller changes over a shorter period of time while macroevolution is larger changes over a longer period of time. Well, each large change is made up of many small changes, and each long period of time is made up of smaller periods of time… (don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to offer this as proof… it just lends some limited credibility.) While there does not exist enough proof to prove macroevolution beyond the shadow of a doubt, there is significantly more proof of evolution than the biblical creationism. I have yet to see any semblance of physical proof of creationism. And saying that there is an order to things does not prove god, or any intelligent creator. We perceive order where it is not, because our minds work in an order based system. We receive sensory input and categorize it. Order is superimposed upon our surroundings by humans. And who said the order that does exist can’t be random? And furthermore, if DNA is a creation of god, how come DNA is flawed? I apologize if any of the questions I raised or comments I made offended you, as I did not intend them to do so. I simply tried to briefly outline why I accept the theory of macroevolution and the fact of microevolution over the biblical alternative.

On a side note:
“its only pure if it is true
if is is not a fact is is a theory only
and theories are false till proven true.”

Truth is perception. And science never claims to know “truth” in the religious sense. Science claims that there is such an abundance of evidence supporting an idea that it can be considered as fact until such time as the evidence suggests otherwise. And tell me, does the bible have such overwhelming evidence of complete truth? Oh by the way, I couldn’t resist this one (you insulted me slightly, so I had to return the favor…0 I’ve never heard of a scientist that RED a lot…. The past tense of read is read…

Answer 8

I wouldn't describe myself as believing in evolution. It's more a case of I don't believe in creationism, and I have accepted evolution, although I really don't care how it all started. So it's the better explanation by far.

Answer 9

You may be a scientist by heart, but not by brain. Your view of evolution is misconstrued. We may only have pieces of the evolution puzzle, but so far they all fit together. I find using logic to figure out a problem much better than assuming that some ancient belief must be right by default.

Answer 10

your logic is faulty - early science had trouble explaining the movement of the planets but eventually worked it out. We can't even explain gravity, but we probably (note probably) will figure out how it works. Not understanding gravity does not prove anything.

Evolution is a theory, and you are right, it has a lot of holes. Personally I believe in the Creator, but if the Creator wanted to start with single-celled organisms or primoridal slime who cares, the Creator is still there.