Do you believe in evolution? Why?

Question

Please come up with a evidence to support it, because I can shoot down just about any theory for it. I'd ove to see someone come up with a logical explanation.

Answer 1

I can guarantee that you can't "shoot it down". Do you really think that you are smarter than the 99.86% of scientists who work in related fields to evolution and know evolution to be true (0.14% don't believe in evolution based on religious faith). Scientists have no need to believe evolution to be true - it would be the greatest career making opportunity possible to find a REAL hole in it.

I can also guarantee that you are full of creationist lies and misinformation. Why don't you post some of them and let us shoot them down?

There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence for evolution - the whole fossil record of 100,000's of species. Speciation has been observed among modern animals. Versitgial structures. etc etc

You need to read up on it yourself if you are so misinformed.

Answer 2

Okay, so shoot me down, but I have the Bible , God,
The Father, Jesus, The Son, The Holy Spirit, It took six
days to create the world.
I don't believe in The Big Bang Theory or evolution
because there is absolutely no way a human being would
have come out so incredibly made so very intricately we are
made. Our circulatory system, the respiratory system, the
system that eliminates waste from our bodies, our blood
vessels, and arteries. The way our bodies are formed, our
reproduction system. The atmosphere, our habitat, the
way the seasons change. Our DNA, should really tell it all.
It took an intelligent being, God if you will, Jesus and The Holy
Spirit, God spoke this world into being, We just didn't happen
we were created in God's image.
Now once upon a time you had Darwin's theory of
evolution to back you up, he admitted himself that his theory
was wrong. So who do you know that you can quote, who do
you know personally, that knows the truth? I know God,
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, personally, who do you know?

Answer 3

Evolution is merely the recombination or mutation of genetic material over time that leads to different traits.

For example, bacteria can interact, exchange their DNA, and become resistant to certain antibiotics. Methicillin resistant Staph aureus is a good example of this.

I am a Christian and also a scientist with a degree in chemistry. The change in genetic material over time has nothing to do with the theory of Creation through intelligent design.

Answer 4

Below is a article on observed Natural Selection, which is basis of evolution.

Evolution itself is difficult to observe because is works over massive time scales.

When are you guys going to realise that the Bible, although a great book for morality, is actually a crap science book! You are happy to accept all the modern benefits of science and technology: gasoline for your car, electricity for lighting and cooking, and electronics for posting closed-minded questions on the Internet, but when it comes to another branch of science that threatens your precious belief system, oh no, that's wrong that is.

If you had real faith you would accept the knowledge that human intellect allows us all to share in. Reflect on the parable of the Three Talents. Have you used your mind lately?

Answer 5

At the start their was nothing at all on earth the total life was in water but as life continued food became scarce in water so continuing evolution they transferred to land and this was a very slow process which left traces which scientists noticed these traces were the presence of a large number of animals,level of evolution different for different animals like fishes remained in water ,for larger animals like whale which developed lungs but was not able to move to land so they have to come to water surface for breathing and last stage was that of terrestrial animals .[outside books a feature in humans that in cold countries people are mostly white while in hot countries people are black why?... malalin ,which skin produces minimizes the effect of heat and lends the co lour is showing adaptation to region or regional conditions

Answer 6

The problem is that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory or an idea suggested as a possible start to everything. The fact is there are too many questions with it and it really can't be proved without doubt. With the start of everything, we can't possibly accept in all seriousness that it "just happened on its own". There must have been someone there to get the ball rolling so to speak. Also, the idea of humans coming from apes is not correct. There have always been apes and always been human. We may have similarities, but one did not ever evolve into another. Well, definitely not in my family anyway!!! lol!

Answer 7

Apparently you have the ability to shoot anything down, why don't you join the air force !

Answer 8

it's a curious thing about "belief". belief doesn't require any proof. you can believe anything... you can also choose not to believe things whether factual or not. it seems that foolish people tend to shoot at things they don't understand. that's the way it's always been.

Answer 9

Remember that christians thought the Earth was at the centre of the universe, and the sun and the planets revolved around us... scientists proved them wrong.

Remember that christians thought the Earth was flat but scientists proved them wrong. The list goes on...


We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

Answer 10

I don't cause there's not enough evidence to support it