evolutionist , if ape as animal is a modern man than how did flowers, fruits and vegetables appear?

Question

with sound mind you can not deny this : for anything that exist a perfection situation has to be present so that it can survive, etc : air, water, organs, food, temperature etc , so without any of this any being right now can not survive less some beings that are transforming and waiting for livers, brains, eyes, blood etc to appear so they can evolve. So, how than do you believe in evolution etc:bacteria to super bacteria to fly to frog to elephant to dolphin to bird to man and they survived while tranforming ( and you are even saying that this creatures while transforming from frogs to birds were able to survive without organs necessery to keep them alive? So name one creature from which you can take any essential organ out and let it wait to transform to something else and i will than understand mind behind evolution .thanks

Answer 1

It's not a one to one thing, it has to do with filling niches and common ancestors.

Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.

Evolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.

There is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

There are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.

Let me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

Go to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.

Answer 2

Your main question itself makes no sense. Your explanation of the question is all over the place, so I have no idea what you're asking of us. It's as if English isn't your first language, which I guess it isn't.

All I can do is state that you're making an argument from incredulity. An argument from incredulity has no basis, as God did it is equally as insanely incredible. Just because you cannot imagine it to happen, does not mean it did not.

What you're doing here is asking several questions and talking complete rubbish.

Firstly, organisms don't transform. Random mutations can only be passed on, if they're present in the gametes. The organism is born with the mutation. It doesn't develop the mutation later on in life, and even if it does, that mutation is not inheritable and will not cause evolution.

Secondly, organs don't appear suddenly. Parts change gradually over generations.

Thirdly, organs that are less developed than ours, are not necessarily completely useless. This was proved by several scientists with Behe's favourite flagellum argument. They managed to prove that every single component of a bacteria's flagellum had its own individual use.

Fourthly, it makes the assumption that parts must evolve separately. There is nothing to state that parts cannot evolve separately.

Fifthly, you make the false assumption that evolution is linear. It is not. It is branched. Species evolve separately down separate lines.

Frogs never evolved into birds. Flies never evolved into frogs and birds never evolved into man, although that latter one would have been very cool.

Oh, and as for naming an organ? How's about the eye? We can remove a bats eyes and it would still be able to live reasonably well. The whale. It evolved from a land mammal, so it lost legs.

There's insects and all sorts of organisms at the bottom of the sea and in deep caverns that don't have any eyes, though they do have what appear to be the remnants of eyes.

Answer 3

One: Organisms do not have to be perfect to survive. They only have to be good enough. As long as they can live long enough to reproduce, the species will continue. In new situations or new environments, minor advantages can help an organism thrive where others fail, but they are not 'perfect'.

Fish live without air; desert birds live without water by getting moisture from bugs and seeds; trees live without hearts, lungs, brains or any other organs; plants make their own food using air and sunlight; bacteria exist that can live in boiling hot springs, or on the ice of glaciers. None of the conditions you describe are necessary for life to exist.

Creatures that evolve do not suddenly develop new organs, or suddenly lose structures they once had. If they did, that would be evidence for supernatural creation, not biological evolution. Evolution works through minor variations and mutations of existing structures.

The mammalian four-chambered heart did not spring forth fully formed and functional with no antecedents. It is a development of earlier variations.

From the aortic arches of lancelets to the simple two chambered swelling of the main blood vessels in fish to the three chambered amphibian heart to the slightly more complex three chambered form in higher amphibians and reptiles, and eventually the four chambered wonder of biological evolution in mammals, there were working intermediate steps in every living organism in between.

In between amphibians and birds, there were lizards, bipedal running reptiles, and small dinosaurs. There were no organs that disappeared, only offspring that varied slightly from their parents. By tiny, gradual steps, the transformation from aquatic swamp dweller to flying critter was achieved.

All that evolution requires is that offspring are different from their parents, and that sometimes that variation is selected for through the natural environment. What is so hard to understand about that?

Answer 4

Creationist, if the bible and all other "god" books the truth then why were they all wrong ?

with an unsound mind you will obviously deny this : people who held up the truth were persecuted throughout the ages as heretics and non-believers. So, if all of the religious sham is wiped off the Earth we will leapfrog into the 31st century right now. Devotee to priest to bishop to archbishop to pope to disciple to apostle to prophet, you have all spread a bunch of lies and have been the cause of death and destruction. So scream all you can and keep on preaching about God and creationism and remember to use the conveniences of Science which you are descrying like th hypocrite you are if you want to live to see the messiah. Thanks.

Answer 5

I'm sure that you got your complete education on the subject of evolution here on yahoo answers.
None of this baloney about organs being transfered from one animal to another is in any of the books on evolution written by our great scientists.
If evolution is so baffeling to you, try creation. Some guy made a man out of clay, then blew on him - - - bingo, there's a person. Then he ripped a rib out of him, and used it to make a woman.
No organs of any kind were needed, just clay and bad breath.

Answer 6

particular. Do you recognize that a eating habitual mutually with meat demands greater crop than a plant-based eating habitual? maximum vegetation bypass to feeding farm animals. So in case you care approximately those wild animals, you're honestly a vegetarian your self. of path you do not care. you in basic terms have been given your knickers twisted because of the fact some human beings have a various eating habitual than you, and you react with the aid of attempting to ridicule them. quite stupid in case you inquire from me. @Dion J: Oh, come off it. do not you become uninterested in enjoying the sufferer to the super propose vegetables each and all the time? i'm not criticizing non-vegetarians in any respect, i'm criticizing the hypocrisy of this question. The ASKER is the guy who got here up with each and all the detrimental animals killed interior the clearing of crop land, not me. I in basic terms element out why that argument would not fly.

Answer 7

You may think that you're supporting God by supporting creationism. What you're actually doing is denying one of Gods greatest miracles: The ability He gave all life to adapt to its environment: To grow and advance instead of remaining static. Would any father wish for his child to remain a child? Why would you suggest that our Heavenly Father would want us to remain as He delivered us. If He had wanted adults He could have just as easily created adults, instead of allowing us to change into adults gradually. Let the scales fall from your eyes and look at the Bigger Picture.

Answer 8

Seeds

Answer 9

Why don't you get your thoughts together and write this again,you're rambling..