Question for people believing in Evolution?

Question

Why do you believe in it, even though it is totaly unscientific? I can't get it.

Answer 1

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.

There may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field. I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design. Such evidence as:

The progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.
Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA
First multicellular animals 670 MYA
Shell-bearing animals 540 MYA
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA
Amphibians 350 MYA
Reptiles 310 MYA
Mammals 200 MYA
Nonhuman primates 60 MYA
Earliest apes 25 MYA
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA
One can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings. Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly. Why? Because they don't want accurate results. Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.

Structural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all.

The distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.

Similarities During Development
Embryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, for instance, are sedentary crustaceans with little apparent similarity to such other
crustaceans as lobsters, shrimps, or copepods. Yet barnacles pass through a free-swimming larval stage in which they look like other crustacean larvae. The similarity of larval stages supports the conclusion that all crustaceans have homologous parts and a common ancestry.
Similarly, a wide variety of organisms from fruit flies to worms to mice to humans have very similar sequences of genes that are active early in development. These genes influence body segmentation or orientation in all these diverse groups. The presence of such similar genes doing similar things across such a wide range of organisms is best explained by their having been present in a very early common ancestor of all of these groups.
The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

Transitional fossils. Despite creationist claims that there are no transitional fossils, they do indeed exist, and there are many of them, across a wide range of species. Humans, horses, whales, and birds, just to name a few. There are transitional fossils showing the evolution of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, and reptile to mammal. There are even transitional species that are still alive today. The lungfish, for example.

Genetic variation.
Evolution would require genetic variation to happen, and a considerable amount of genetic diversity exists even among members of the same species, identical twins notwithstanding.

Microevolution.
Creationists once claimed that after God created everything, animals stopped changing. This has been so thoroughly debunked that even the most hardcore creationists accept that microevolutionary changes occur. The problem for creationists is that microevolution happens within a time fram that is even less then the blink of an eye in a gelogical scale. It is not unreasonable to infer that over hundreds of millions of years, conditions could lead to a population of animals evolving into something very different from the parent generation. Creationists are always asking evolutionists to show them an example of this, but they demand an example within a time scale that simply isn't reasonable. Not that creationists have ever been reasonable about debating these things.

DNA analysis shows that genetic similarities between living things of all species of plant an animal show a close correlation with their closeness within the phylogenic tree. Shared DNA is very strong evidence of familial relationship. Of course, creationists dismiss this evidence as nothing more than God having used a similar design, and similar creatures will therefore have similar DNA. This is a weak, and sad effort to dismiss DNA evidence for evolution. Further, it doesn't explain why we share "junk DNA" with other animals. If a woman came to you with a baby that was a dead ringer for a guy when he was the same age, and a DNA test proved that he was the father, wouldn't it be a little laughable to you if that guy said that the baby had similar DNA because they looked alike? Likewise, if the DNA test showed that he wasn't the father of a baby that looked nothing at all like him, then said that it was his kid, but the DNA was different because the baby didn't look like him?

Disingenious? Of course. In fact, it is downright dishonest. DNA correlates with the degree of the relationship.
Period.

Just one of any of these evidences I've cited could not be considered evidence, much less proof. But the totality of it all, when brought together, requires an explanation, and common descent explains it best, which is why 99% of the 400,000 scientists in all related fields accept evoltuion as the best theory. And these scientists range from all branches of religion. While some are atheists, many are christians from all denominations. Some are buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. It simply doesn't hold water to accuse the entire scientific community of a great conspiracy. Especially when you consider that evolution had been postualted 100 years or more before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" by a small group of scientists that were also members of the christian church who felt it was their Heavenly duty to discover how God governed His creations. Scientists still vigorously debate the mechanisms of evolution (how it occurs), but they are pretty much unanimous that all species share a common ancestor with other species.

Rather than come up with evidence of their own, creationists spend all of their time poo-pooing the evidence for evolution. The problem is that criticisms of evolution, regardless of how valid they are, are NOT evidence for literal creation. Doubless, this thread will soon be riddled with posts that claim this or that, in support of literal creation, in response to what I've written. before doing so, the writer should visit this site; http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are... It outlines several arguments that creationists should NOT use. Written by creationists, for creationists. Then, if your argument, whatever it is, isn't mentioned there, visit http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html... and http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/list_of_... These sites counter each and every argument I have ever heard from creationists. If you have something new, I'd love to hear about it.

If you "don't get it," I suggest that you probably haven't really examined the issue with an open mind, and/or lack the basic knowlege about the topic to make an informed decision.

Last, let me add that in a way, I am a creationist. I am a christian who believes that God created us through evolution. Believe as you wish, but please don't confuse me with atheists.

Answer 2

When you say 'Totally Unscientific', I have to wonder what your basing that on. Are you wondering about animals or people only?
I believe in reincarnation, however because nobody had put an answer to your question, I decided to.

In favour of evolution. Everything adapts to its surroundings. Historically, simultaneously as a specific type of animal was becoming extinct, another animal belonging to the same family was making its debut on the food chain.
This would not happen overbite BOOM one species is dead, BANG another species is made.
Life is only here for the strong. The weak Gened eventually die off. In the animal kingdom, that is. Nowadays, at the top of the food chain, we are keeping severely disabled people alive. These folks who would not make it without medicine. I personally feel that this is one reason that our planet is becoming overpopulated.
This is an excellent website showing a time line of evolution ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline
Does this answer your question, or at least begin satisfy your quest for opinions?
**jasmine**

Answer 3

regrettably, sure. i don't comprehend how they might cope with the cognitive dissonance. you're actually not properly-knowledgeable when you consider which you do not know that concept is the utmost point in technological know-how. this is not a wager. that's ignorant to declare "in basic terms a concept". the effortless ancestor of all apes (alongside with people and chimps) is a monkey and which could be shown on your delight. It does not remember on the belief of evolution. that's a fact. Theories don't have evidence which in basic terms applies in arithmetic. Theories have information. there is not any information of a god of any kind. Theories are falsifiable. that's a function, not a malicious program. If information is produced that shows yet another concept or this one desires exchange, then we found out something and are grateful for it. faith does not have that function. And that's requred. So introduction by ability of a god isn't able to being a concept. because of the fact the invention of mitochodrial DNA ancestry could be desperate by ability of genetic mapping and we don't desire bones to confirm the belief. Theories make predictions and could be used to enhance different theories and open up entirely new traces of inquiry. the belief of evolution is useful because of the fact is works, not unavoidably for the reason that's fact. Evolution is fact yet organic decision is a concept. final analysis is that it incredibly works. God as an evidence does not artwork for us and is not probably an answer in that regard. Its an excuse to not think of approximately it.

Answer 4

I'm going to make the assumption that you have been home-schooled??

I'm not surprised so many who have been home-schooled, using religious psuedo-science textbooks, such as"'Science of the Physical Creation in a Christain perspection" believe that Evolution isn't scientific. After-all, these books tell you things like the Grand-Canyon, which was formed over millions of years by the Colorado river, which exposes over 2 billion years of Earth's geological history, was infact formed very rapidly during the world-wide Biblical flood, and all of the sedimentary strata visible in the canyon walls were deposited then. *Honestly*.

However, from a young age you're being indoctrinated by religious teachings, which are threatened by the discoveries of science. I just wish you'd open your eyes.

In direct answer to your question: The theory of evolution is extremely scientific - there are reams of evidence to support it, such as fossil records, and of course, DNA analysis. And let us not forget the modern experients of microorganisms, which show evolution happening before our very eyes!

The Creationist/Intellegent design concept is what is not scientific. It is a religious/philosophical idea. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence to back this up. The Bible is not proof in scientific terms.

I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your beliefs. However, it is very, very important that the difference between science and religion is clearly defined. Evolution is science, Creationism is faith. And it is my belief that these two ideas be kept in the appropriate classroom.

Unfortunately that line is being more and more blurred, because scientific discoveries are contradicting religious beliefs. In America, more and more religious parents are now schooling their children at home - in the last 16 years the number of home-schooled children has jumped from 0.3 million, to 2.4 million, and that number is still growing.

If this trend continues, America will find itself controlled by fanatical religious conservatives, and that will be it's downfall. (It's quite ironic that extreme Christianity is rising so rapidly, when America is claiming to fight against religious extremism. I guess Muslims are just the wrong religion as far as America is concerned.)

Simply saying 'all your evidence is wrong' does not make a good arguement. Ignoring the evidence will not make it go away. If you are right, and God created the Earth 6,000 years, does it really matter what us scientists think?? But please, try to look at things with an open and questioning mind, not one which is closed to all but religious teachings.

Answer 5

I believe in evolution because evolution is real. Do you belive that you are evolving? In my case I belive because I was born very little bu no I am about 178cm high and large mass. If I was born the way I am looking I couldn't belive evolutin. I am sure many people do mix to make clear evolution is the gradual change of an organism in the course of life in order to fit the environement. I your grand grand grand father would raise from the dead to day do you think he could see people of the same character? real he could be astonished becuase the huamans are changing from the premitive form into complex form.

Answer 6

hmmm, evolution is unscientific? Yea, and your giant flying speghetti monster is so much more scientific.

I believe in directed evolution because it is the only theorey that makes any sense. The fossil record shows way beyond a doubt that evolution has taken place. Also, we can watch evolution happen in many species even in our own lifetimes.

Answer 7

Because it's not totally unscientific.

Answer 8

I believe in evolution. otherwise humans won't be formed! first were the protists then bacterias then all other kingdoms emerged until humans were formed. Don't you think it's wierd when humans were formed on the very first day of creation?

Answer 9

how is it unscientific...you can measure the age of bones..u can map out what places look like hundres of years ago...you can figure out what they ate...what tools they used...

Answer 10

totally unscientific? it's proven, get your facts straight

Answer 11

And if all the worlds people came from Adam and Eve how inbred would we be. I'll stick with the scientist.