Quetion for Darwinian's?

Question

So can you honestly prove to me that man evolved from a monkey fish frog muntant thing to become man, show me proof, or can you?

Answer 1

You are correct; neither monkeys, fish, nor frogs evolved through favorable mutations to derive humans. However, you are incorrect in your assumption that any scientist or evolutionist has said and published the idea that humans descended from monkeys.

In fact Charles Darwin did not even develop the idea of evolution, this concept preceded Darwins' study of wildlife in the Galapagos Islands aboard the SS Beagle. Darwin noted in his journal that the wildlife among the archipelago (chain of islands) differed slightly; some animals looked similar but had specific adaptations that allowed them to better thrive in their environment. An example of this is observed in birds that look the same but have different beak shapes based on the type of seeds that are available to them. Long story short, Darwin came to the conclusion that survival depends on a species to change with its environment, hence his Theory of Natural Selection.

The general, uninformed, populous has very narrow and incorrect views on Darwin, and thus evolution due to the controversy of the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in the 1920's in which any remaining layman credibility was shattered when the media quickly convinced the impressionable public of an erroneous theory that we descended from monkeys. And it since then this flawed, foolish and far fetched idea of a false theory that is inconceivable to anyone with any common sense is favored to be quoted by those whose mind is as narrow are their descending colon.

Answer 2

I am an educated scientist, and a Christian. One might think that the two are incompatible, since the Bible tells us that God created humans in his image on the sixth day of creation (about 6000 years ago), yet modern science tell us (quite convincingly) that this simply cannot have been the case.

One thing a lot of people overlook, though, is the intent of the early chapters of the Bible. I don't think that the author of the book of Genisis inteded for it to be a factual historic account of the origins of man. It is a story meant to teach a moral lesson about the rise of man in paradise and his fall due to sin.

In much the same way as "forty days and forty nights" is a euphamism for "we're not really sure how long it was, but it was a pretty long time", most of the stories in the early Old Testament are not meant to be taken as literal historic accounts. Jesus himself taught with parables, which were stories meant to teach lessons rather than recount actual events.

I think more Christians should start trying to learn the lessons that the Bible teaches, instead of going around with a "the Bible says its true, so I'm right and you're wrong" mentality. Does it really threaten your faith that much to think that what was spoon-fed to you as a kid in Sunday school might not be the way things actually are?

God gave us minds and the ability to reason. We should use them.

Answer 3

All creatures with a spinal column have a single common ancestor in the fossil record. It is only a basic backbone, but it is there. Say hi to your great x 100000000 granda kiddo.

Agree with hznfirst. Blind Watchmaker is an interesting book, although if you want something totally readable try Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Everything" and go from there.

Answer 4

How come the more religious someone is the worse their grammar (and logic) are? There is no apostrophe in Darwinians!

I can't prove it to you all by myself, but I can suggest reading some books on the subject - by biologists, not preachers with an agenda - with an eye to actually learning something.

Speaking of eyes, Dawkins' (that apostrophe indicates the possesive) "The Blind Watchmaker" is a great place to start.

Answer 5

My apologies, this is directed at "Jay E".

As a biology prof and atheist, I have to disagree. The notion of a god contradicts natural selection. If you believe that God has influenced the direction of evolution then you believe in divine selection. If you believe God played no role in evolution, than what is the role of God? The notion of God contradicts Occam's razor as it raises many questions and answers none. God is not a testable hypothesis and as such is not within the realm of science, but instead is a result of blind faith.

Well you may profess to be religious because you are a good Christian, a good Muslim, etc.; you certainly cannot profess to be religious because you are a good scientist.

Answer 6

I could present you with mountains of evidence, but you would have to be prepared to accept it, otherwise it would be a waste of both our times.

To add to a previous answer - Richard Dawkins seems to be the evolutionary biologists' champion at the moment, I would suggest looking at "The Ancestor's Tale". It explains many of the evolutionary steps needed to get from single cell to human. But, with respect, again you would need to read it with the view to not rejecting the evidence before it is given.
After all, it would not hurt to read it, would it?

Answer 7

As someone who is both a lover of science and who is religious, I find this totally insulting, i.e. your grammar, tone, total lack of knowledge of evolution, and more importantly your impudence that suggests that someone has to prove anything to you.

I suggest you begin by reading this article in NG, maybe this will help you with your problems.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

Answer 8

The fossil records a good place to start, also the fact evolution can be observed in humans, as a race we are taller smarter and physically mature faster then we did 60 years ago. also look at vestigial organs(evolutionary leftovers), like the appendix, male nipples, human body hair, the list goes on. just open your damn eyes.

Answer 9

molecular basis such as introns and pseudogenes are striking evidences that we are made by "try and error mechanism" wether created by nature or God.