how can anyone prove that evolution is wrong?

Question

would organ transplant, blood transfusions, surgery and antibiotics been a possibility if evolution was not true?

Answer 1

Evolution is a given. The only questions are HOW things evolved. The sub text in your question has nothing to do with evolution. A series of cognitive thinkers is not evolution.

Answer 2

Organ transplants and blood transfusions are not possible between animals of different species. If evolution were true, one would think similar animals could donate organs, but this has not been done without rejection of the organ.

How can one prove evolution is wrong? There is an abundance of evidence. There are fossils of mammals (including man) with dinosaur fossils. There are drawings where ancient men painted dinosaurs in the Grand Canyon and Natural Bridges National Park (USA). There are hundreds of ancient sculptures of dinosaurs found in Mexico. There are Inca burial stones from Peru that depict known dinosaurs. All of these are done in impressive detail and impossible if the ancient artists had never seen a dinosaur as evolution proponents claim.

Most who believe in evolution have never looked at, much less considered, the evidence against that view.

Answer 3

I personally do not believe in evolution because I am a stubborn pious person. However, the argument is convincing and think it may be POSSIble that evolution occurred however impossible sounding it may be, we could have come from gorillas.

Part of what science explains is that we question and we answer. So eventually organ translplants, blood tranfusions, surgery and antibiotics would have been invented despite whether or not people, human beings, believed in evolution.
Evolution does play a role in our development of medical science. Either God or the Big Bang created it us, it does not matter, just that we, as simple creatures have brains capable of thinking and so its is not that impossible for things to occur.

Only until religion is mixed with science do problems begin.

By the way, there is ABSOLUTELY NO relevancy between medical science and the theory of evolution. (notice i wrote THEORY).

Answer 4

Actually, the blood groups and tissue types that make transfusion and transplantation difficult are evidence of evolution. We evolved to vary the cell surface molecules so that a virus with a strong affinity for one receptor couldn't drive the species to extinction.

Antibiotics are a result of competition between microbes.

Answer 5

You will have to no longer be doing any study in arguments for and towards the Theory of Evolution for those who can't even assemble a grammatical sentence in English! Stop utilising textual content talk. I do not care if you're one of the most fortunate few who can have enough money an Internet connection in your phone. For technological know-how questions use formal English for those who desire a significant reply! You query will have to were: How can I argue towards the speculation of evolution? I am looking to uncover out who if any person has argued towards the Theory of Evolution and what used to be the groundwork in their arguments. I additionally realize to grasp what forms of arguments would be made towards the Theory of Evolution in its present sort and who's doing so and why? Are they utilising medical proof or jsut arguing from what they see as logical flaws within the present idea? Ask a significant considerate query like this and you can get critical solutions!

Answer 6

Just to get this out of the way. The rumor that science is moving away from evolution is dishonest. There is only one area in the whole world where anti-evolution holds any sway whatsoever in life-sciences - academia or research - and that's in some Islamic countries. But then, dogma has always created strange bed-fellows.
As for the arguments about:
1 Thermodynamics
2. Probabilities
3. Fossil record "gaps"
All you have to do is get on any of the hundreds of sites that make mince-meat of every single one of these canards. Of course you have want to know about it.

Answer 7

What does organ transplant, blood transfusions, surgery and antibiotics has to do with evolution...are you ok?

Answer 8

Simple the second Law of Thermodynamics states that all matter tends to go to a lesser state. This is a law, not a theory like evolution that means all life would tend to go to a lesser form unlike Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest". The other major thing is Darwin's statement that in order for evolution to be proven there would have to be a great many "transitional fossils" that we refer to today as the missing link. Unfortunately for evolutionists there have been a whopping 0 found.

Answer 9

Evolution can not be proven true because you can not test it. Science is based upon measurable empirical data (in other words, through observation) and so I can't see how evolution can then be considered science as it, by its very own definition can not be observed.

It's actually pretty funny that the evolution theory (emphasis on "theory") is viewed by some to be a "cure" for creationism when it is merely another dogma.

Answer 10

for starters how about sandal prints found beside fossils in the same rock layers (that are supposedly millions of years old, before humans were supposed to exist), there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind. Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process. The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order.

no evidence?

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
or what about what evolutionists themselves admit, Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred.