Evolutionists?

Question

Why if you feel there is so much proof for chance is evolution still a theory, How close are you to it being fact? 150 years and still no jump from one spices to another none found not one in all the millions of fossils not one single fact found for this. Conjecture sure but that dose not work, feel free to suggest it but the truth is if they had proof it would not still be a theory. I once believed evolution was the truth but now after my education, coming from a statistical math background, I don’t understand how people don’t see the impossibility in chance for life. If you look at it from a math background the time the earth has been here, as we know it, it’s not even worth a drop in the bucket for the time required for chance to create life. In fact the time the universe has been here is still a far cry from the time required. Evolution is logical just so ridiculously mathematically improbable it makes belief in God seem trivial.

Answer 1

i think your scientific calculator needs new batteries

Answer 2

Your question shows little knowledge of science and a lot of religious indoctrination. For one thing, you challenge the scientific evidence for evolution but give no evidence whatsoever for divine creation. For another, scientists discuss evolution, but they are scientists, not "evolutionists." That word is a coinage of the religious fundamentalist movement to disparage scientists whose work challenges their religious dogmas.

For anyone who reads this and truly wants to learn and not just argue:

Evolution is a theory, AND it is a fact. In science, a "theory" is a model to explain evidence observed in pursuit of truth. Mathematicians speak of "number theory," so do you doubt the existence of numbers?

Your question parrots the same false arguments against evolution made by people who don't understand science that have been made since the church persecuted Galilleo for doubting that the earth is at the center of the universe.

FALSE ARGUMENT: "Still no jump from one spices (sic) to another..." What exactly are you expecting? If scientists found a monkey skull and a human skull and said, "Look, a jump from one species to another!" you and every scientist would agree that was a false conclusion. But if science shows gradual change from one species to another, and it does, you say that disproves evolution too. Either way, in your mind evolution is disproven and your religious belief in Creationism is proven.

FALSE ARGUMENT: Statistics prove that evolution could not have taken place in the time the earth, or even the universe has existed. First, you're making the assumption that a bunch of molecules just fell together and formed a living thing, like the proverbial watch parts in the washing machine. That is not what science says, just what Creationists say it says. Atoms come together to form molecules, and molecules to become compounds, billions of times every second. It is illogical to say that can't happen because the odds of it happening are infinitesimal.

You say you come "from a statistical math background..." The lack of scientific reasoning and the poor grammer and wording of your question seems to belie that fact. It implies that your math background might be a high school math class, or perhaps junior college, rather than a university postgraduate math major, am I not right?

Answer 3

Oh, honey. You've fallen into all the rhetorical traps all at once, haven't you?

1. That species evolve is fact. The theory of evolution attempts to explain HOW. That's why that part is a theory. And a scientific theory is not the same as the "theory" Joe Blow comes up with after four beers.

2. No, there's no "jump" from one species to another, but there are a lot of transitional forms. Not every thing that ever lived was fossilized, but we actually have a pretty impressive record of transitions. No missing link is required. It's a total myth anyway.

3. You need to brush up on your statistics, and geology. Given the environment here on Earth, it would be an anomaly if life DIDN'T develop over the last billion years.

4. Belief in evolution is not exclusive of belief in God.

Answer 4

First, no one "feels" that there is proof. People think there is proof. Feeling and thinking are two different operations, both valuable of course, but not identical. Further, do some more reading about evolution, genetics and science that doesn't come from some church-affiliated propaganda mill. Go to the library, read "On The Origin Of Species" (not spices) and see what's actually said.

Answer 5

First of all, 150 years is a drop in the bucket compared to the 4.5 billion years that the Earth has been here. Secondly we have new viruses and bacteria created all the time. That is evolution in a smaller form. If you take all the life forms on Earth and break them down, they ALL have the same 50 basic building blocks...all of them. To NOT believe in Evolution is denying reality. Get "the cosmos" by Carl Sagan..either the DVD set or the book. It explains it in a very simple way and it is undeniable

Answer 6

You're mighty confused, aren't you?

Your "question" makes essentially no sense at all, is full of false statements, and seems to be based on the assumption that evolution is a matter of chance. You also have that standard creationist mistaken notion of what a "theory" is.

I also doubt that you have a "statistical math background" of any significance - your claiming that in the middle of such a poorly written and argued, confused, and false set of claims is simply not very convincing.

In short, you're in over your head here. You simply don't know enough about evolution to be able to effectively dispute it. Try learning about it first, and then come back and try again.

Here's a hint for a starter: evolution is essentially a statistical phenomenon, with biological evolution only one of many instantiations. When you understand evolution, you'll see how silly it is to dispute it. If you don't believe in evolution, you must believe either (1) living organisms do not inherit characteristics from their parents, (2) all living organisms are identical, or (3) all living organisms have always had exactly the same number of offspring that live long enough to reproduce. As long as it is true that we inherit characteristics, we are not all identical, and we do not all have the same number of offspring, evolution is a statistical necessity. If you understood it at all, you'd understand that. Frankly, though, I think it's almost certainly over your head - too difficult for you to understand.

Answer 7

Oy.... a scientific theory isn't the same as "just a theory" in laymans terms. Species ARE evolving but it's unreasonable to expect a "jump" in 150 years. 150 years is a "drop in the bucket" in terms of evolution. It doesn't occur in leaps and bounds. If you knew anything about evolution, you'd already know that.

You'd ALSO know what a scientific theory is. In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Theory: A theory is like a scientific law only much more complex. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Answer 8

you have to remember that evolution does not happen ofer such short times as 150 years. it takes thousands, even tens of thousands of years for even the slighest changes to occur. there is plenty of evidance that we are descended from primates. have you ever heard of the specimins found frozen in glaciers that are remarcably similar to humans, but not quite? how dou you explain parallel species?

the creationist will tell you that 6,000 years (how old the earth is) is not long enough for evolution to take place; ant they're right! but they assume the earth is only that old, which is simply preposterous. lead-isotpe dating points to the earth being 4.5 billion years old......woops! now if you realy do have a bacground in statistics you can at least acknowlege that given enough time, the improbable nearly alwyas happens (after all, the planet is 4.5 billion years old, that's a LONG time).

furthermore, there is no serious debate in the scientific community on wether or not evolution is fact. it is widely accepted as such, with a mere handfull believing otherwise.


now i dont expect any of what i've said to convince you, you've made it clear your viewpoint is unwavering, even though you try to make it sound as you are coming at thie scientificaly. (all scients worth their salt are willing to accept that they are wrong given data that shows it conclusively). it seems as if you have neglected to research the astounding evidance FOR evolution. perhaps you should take int acount all the data before leaping to a decision.


addendum:
here is another "theory" as the word is discribed in your tone:

the earth goes around the sun

Answer 9

Good point to ponder.
I also find that evolution lack of very essence foundation of prove that there is no transition fossil.
Even when im kid and teached all about this whole evolute, from snake to mammal thing.
I was like think,.. hey.. how come this snake can live?

in order for it to become mammals, it need to grow hand and leg, and the proccess is even worst, it takes milion of years for it to walk inproperly, with inperfect leg; to have unfinished organ to support it's role as mammals...
Do you think it's weird? All the transition thing, Unable to live as a normal snake, but also Uncomfortable to live as a mammals yet, because of it's uncomplete organ hasnt been grow yet. Then what you can call it? to live for thousands of year, and yet there's no evidence of fossil for animal in this transition state.

Answer 10

The conditions for life are the same, everywhere in the universe. It's hard for humans to see evolution because of our short lifespans. But the fossils and rocks tell us the grand and sweeping story of evolution. Life began pretty quick once the earth cooled. Which means that life is pretty much guaranteed everywhere in the cosmos.

Answer 11

I don’t understand how this is relevant to religion though, honestly. Lets say (I humor you) and agree that evolution is incorrect. How does that mean that a god exists?

I disagree that evolution is improbable. It is an extremely slow process and each step upward is not that improbably by itself. The whole thing put together just seems that way. Understand what I’m saying?