Darwin and Intelligent Design - where are the missing?

Question

links ? is Darwin's theory of life being a coincidental product of chemicals in a warm prehistoric environment and human life nothing more than another coincidental product of millions of years of genetic mutation and development accepted and where is the evidence ? Serious answers please .. thanks

Answer 1

I really hope you get a full explanation from somebody, but I have to say this much: Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only seeks to explain how variations assert themselves within and between species. Derivative hypotheses on the origin of life, the trend toward complexity, etc. are modern, and still being researched.

By the way, Jax, Darwin was a Christian, and was pressured by the church into forsaking his work and trying to cover up his evidence in exchange for his salvation. If anything, turning his back on science at the end of his life was what made him a fool.

Answer 2

Ooh, I just wanted to respond to the comment above that there is no evidence for evolution because it's a theory. That person is making a mistake very common with people not familiar with scientific terminology. In science, "theory" has a very specific meaning that is much more rigorous than the way we use it in everyday speech. In science, a "theory" is an explanation of the way something works. Theories must be tested for plausibility; those that fail are tossed out.

For instance, the equations that Newton came up with for gravity form his theory of gravitation. Now, gravity demonstrably exists. The laws governing gravity, however, were discovered by Newton, and scores of tests over the ages showed them to be fairly accurate, at least on a medium-sized scale (as in, somewhere between a solar system and an atom). Therefore, Newton's theory of gravitation is widely accepted. What this does, however, is leave open the possibility that something that better explains all available data will come along, which is precisely what happened with Newtonian physics. You guys remember Einstein? His theory of how gravity works takes care of some anomolies with a couple of planetary orbits that Newton's system couldn't account for, so Newton isn't used for the really specific stuff anymore. It's good enough for the layman, though, so that's why you still learn Newtonian physics in school. I could, I suppose, make up a theory of gravitation, complete with random equation, but, unless it fit available data better than that which Einstein thought up, it's not going to become accepted.

So that's basically what happened with Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution demonstrably happens. We watch bacteria evolve all the time, and we study the fossil record and read the evolution of more long-lived life forms. The theory part is the exact mechanism by which evolution occurs, which is still being fine-tuned.

Answer 3

This is a common misconception generated in the eighties when there was in fact a missing link - Encino man!! that's right, Brendan Fraser was the missing step in human evolution . . . So sorry, you wanted serious?

Well then we'll get right to it. As I said, the concept of a missing link is misleading and outdated. Since the eighties we have greatly expanded our collections of fossils and there is now no large gap in human evolution. We have specimins from a very detailed spectrum of only slightly phenotypically varied human fossils which paint a clear picture of evolution. As a matter of interest, I believe the only other animal so closely observed is the horse.

As has been mentioned above creationism or not, Darwin only discovered the mechanisms by which speciation can occur. The fact that we have observed speciation proves this (we have been able to observe the divergence of species so they can no longer reproduce and give fertile offspring).

Now of course we can't accept that the earth was created seven thousand years ago as the geneaology from Jesus to Adam in the Bible would suggest. However we don't neccessarily have to reject intelligent design. After all, God could certainly have designed the laws of evolution just as he designed the laws of physics.

Another interesting side effect of the "God created everything as it is" theory - Human diseases can only survive by infecting a human host. If we don't accept Darwin's evolution theory we must assume that God also created all viruses and bacteria just as they are when he created everything else. There were only 2 hosts for all these human diseases - Adam and Eve. So if everything was created exactly as it is as SOME creationists claim, Adam and Eve were two very, very sick people!

Answer 4

I recall that speciation has been in fact demonstrated in the laboratory involving a single cell critter, something remarkable when one considers that often it is a matter of tens of thousands of years or longer for this to occur in the wild.

Darwin had no concept of "chemicals in a warm prehistoric environment." If you read The Origins of Species for yourself you would see that he constantly makes reference to not knowing the mechanisms involved.

In fact, Darwin had nothing to say of mutations, only of natural selection. He never read Mendel, although he grasped the concept of gene it was nothing he articulated.

I suggest you read Darwin yourself for his evidence, which included a round trip voyage and 15 years afterwards of wrestling with the implications of what he saw. In fact he was against publishing it until another naturalist sent him a manuscript describing exactly what Darwin had observed before.

As for missing links-- what missing links do you propose are missing? We have Homo erectus, Homo habilis, the entire line of Australopithecines, Ardipithecus ramidus; we have Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, some 30-35 million years ago, for heaven's sake.

Answer 5

Darwin's theories have been widely challenged and improved by scientists, but the existence of an evolutionist process is accepted as the best scientific way to explain species and diversities. The study of this process require observation and experiments, so there is no absolute "evidence" that it's true, but up to now it's consistent with logic and hard facts.

Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory, as it can't be tested and it can't generate predictions.

Note that I'm not saying evolution is the only possible explanation, but up to know, no other scientific theory has proved to be more convincing in regard of tests and observations.

Answer 6

First, Darwin stated no longer some thing of ways life began. Evolution has no longer some thing to do with that. second, the lacking links are all round you in any respected museum of organic historic previous. there's a fairly exact fossil record of the human evolution, and the DNA prognosis of thousands of species helps evolution, and the DNA prognosis of the primate households helps human evolution. human beings aren't any more some thing better than electrochemical platforms of a particular form that arose by skill of chaotic techniques.

Answer 7

Evolution and "intelligent design" are not mutually exclusive. If, for instance you are very religious and want to believe in creation as the explanation, you have to accept that God created Charles Darwin and it is possible that God created evolution as a biological process. There are too many obvious examples and experiments to demonstrate evolution to recount here, for instance work on quickly multiplying fruit flies. So you could believe in both and that would not be a contradiction!

Answer 8

It is interesting that you state that in order for a theory to be considered a proven fact it must be observed and repeated in a lab. Yet contrary to what you claim this has never been done with evolution. Watching the development of frog or human embryos does not prove evolution because then the next generation that was conceived would have to be conceived fully formed.

Answer 9

Just a few points needed here, there are others but I will not put an entire book's worth here.

Science has shown us that the sun keeps getting farther and farther away. If the earth is really millions and millions of years old (and if the religion of evolution is true, we need millions and millions of years), then why is the earth here in the first place. The earth would have been to close to the sun, thus detsroying the earth and rendering any life on the earth impossible.

Another thing is, they estimate the age of fossils by the layer of dirt they find them in. After that, they claim to know the age of any layer of dirt by the fossils they find them in. This is circular reasoning thus making the age of either, impossible to find out by their methods. You have to know the age of one before you can know the age of the other.

Lastly, they claim the universe was started by one small piece of dirt that was moving and spinning around. This piece of ....... dirt....... then exploded into everything we know of today( aka the Big Bang). From the natural laws of the universe, we know that if something is spinning, anything that comes detached ( in this case of the dirt, the whole universe) spins in the same direction as object from which propelled it. Observation has shown us that planets, stars, ect are not all spinning in the same direction. If the piece of dirt was spinning, than every major source of gravity should be spinng in the same direction. Also another natural law states that the nothing can be in a state of movement without something forcing it to move in the first place............. What forced the piece of dirt to move, spin, or most importantly explode? It kinda makes you wonder who in there right minds gives credence to such nonsense. You might have have noticed me write that evolution is a religion. Evolution is a religion because it has not been proven a fact, and the people who accept it worship it like a religion. If it's fact then why do they have to defend and argue it by down playing every thing that gives the slightest hint there is a God?

Creation has the earth not so old, thus keeping it a fair distance from the sun. Creation has the earth made by a high power in six days, thus making it possible for it not to be so old. Creation has the entire universe created, thus eliminating the need for a starting force. Everything was already spinning in its designated direction.

Finally, having a creator means that any natural law can be overridden by the creator HIMself.
God is neither man or women, but the God inspired authors of the bible used the masculin term him or he or his when referancing God.

Maybe if evolution is true then there is the force("Use the force Darwin and let it flow through you.")....lol.

>>>YOUDARNEDKID. One thng you did not think about was, religion is highly disputed. Some people believe that if you chose any religion were you believe in a god you are a christian and your soul is headed for heaven( I work with a few guys who accept that.) But christians was the name given as a mockery to Jesus Christ's early followers by those who prosecuted them for their beliefs. They believed that Jesus died for them and they were not accountable to ANYONE other than God and the perfect Trinity. You do not have to ask a priest for forgiveness or do any more works to be saved from hell. "For by grace you haved been saved through faith, and NOT that of yourselves, it is the gift of god; NOT as a result of works, so that no man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9. If Darwin told the truth about what he thought and did in his life, Then you cannot label him a Christian. Find out a little more about true christianity before saying something like that about it again bud!


>>>>>> Don, DO NOT , let me repeat that, do not even go there. Do not get on somone because they didn't get there quote right. Evolutionists half the time, don't know what there talking about when they say something pertaining to creationism. As was evidenced with the paragraph I put above this paragraph. And I'm never embarassed by Creationism or God.

Answer 10

Evolution is a fact. Intelligent Design is a theory.