Evolution Evidence. Do you have one shred of evidence to say that Evolution is a true?

Question

I have never seen a single piece of actual evidence providing a clear picture to whether or not evolution is true. I don't believe in Evolution and I don't know how anyone else could if theres nothing to prove it. Just a question. take no offense.

Answer 1

First tell me what you mean when you say "evolution". I want to make sure we're thinking of the same thing.

Ok... well..... if you're not going to define it for me, just visit the links below. They should help you understand evolution.

Answer 2

Ever hear of a virus or bacterial infection?

Why is there a new flu shot every year? If you can answer this without citing evolutionary science, you would just be fooling yourself.

Here's how it works:

A person contracts a bacterial throat infection. Immediately their body produces antibodies to ward it off. Sometimes the body's natural antibodies aren't strong enough, so an antibiotic is administered. The antibiotic consists of weakened or dead bacteria, that the body can break down easily. This forms the correct antibody to kill the bacteria, and helps the body continue to build antibodies to ward off the infection, until the body no longer needs the help (and produces the antibodies on its own).

Now, lets say the person discontinues the antibiotic before the body has completely destroyed the infection. The remaining bacteria that survived the wave of antibodies get to throw in on the "bacterial gene pool." Now, the infection contains the properties of all of the survivors, rendering the old antibiotic useless- as the bacteria is immune to the antibodies formed from fighting the weaker bacteria- thus a new strain of infection is formed. That's why you're supposed to take ALL of your antibiotics when you get them.

If you really need more evidence than this, go to a museum. It will be staring you right in the face.

This wasn't really a serious question, was it?

Answer 3

Science doesn't deal in proving facts. It cannot. You cannot universally prove something by experimentation. For example, you cannot for certain state that there is not a region in our universe where gravity works differently than it does on Earth. As such, you cannot say, "We have proven gravity works the same everywhere." You can only say, "Everywhere we have tested our understanding of Gravity, it has behaved consistently."

For example, I hold in my hand a black velvet bag that you cannot see through. I tell you it contains marbles, and I ask you to guess what color they are. You have no idea, you've seen none of the marbles, so you randomly guess, "They're all red." This is a guess, not even a hypothesis -- you have done no research short of being told there were marbles.

I allow you to reach in and pull one, and only one, out of the bag. I make sure you do not see any of the other marbles while you do so. When you look at it, it is red. I take the marble and put it back in the bag. You have a small bit of information that says 'red' is a decent guess, so now you can call it a hypothesis. But this doesn't prove all of them are red.

I allow you to continue pulling out one marble and then put it back in the bag. Your hand tells you while its in the bag that there are about a hundred marbles. After 100 pulls, you've never seen a marble any color but red. You might have drawn a marble twice, so you still can't say with 100% certainty that all of them are red. You draw 10,000 times, and they're all red.

This would be pretty convincing. You could now say, "The odds are so against a non-red marble that I consider it a fact that all are red." But you don't know it, you haven't proven it... in fact, to prove it, you'd have to see every single marble all at once -- and the bag (and the universe) won't let you see it all at once.

On your 10,001 draw ... you get a blue marble. Now, were you wrong to state that you considered it a fact all were red? No... that IS what in fact you considered, because the evidence overwhelmingly supported that conclusion. However, with this new information, you know that your initial theory is wrong. So you may adjust, maybe, "There are many red marbles and a few blue marbles." You could test this by continuing to draw until you got a non-red/non-blue marble, which would disprove your updated theory -- so your theory is falsifiable.

After a million draws, you notice a disturbing fact -- even though there are only 100 marbles in the bag, the statistics are telling you only one in 10,000 marbles are blue. This means something much more complicated is going on. So you'd have to come up with a new hypothesis and a new way to test, and if the experiments supoprted that, you'd have a new theory that explains ALL your past experiences PLUS the new ones.

But you could never PROVE the status of all the marbles without seeing all of them. So you would never have a Law, never have PROOF... only a cycle of hypothesis, test, theory...

Answer 4

Interesting question.

I am by no means qualified to answer it.

However, wasn't there a good load of scientific and archeological evidence found over the centuries to support the theory of evolution?

I mean all the different human fossils of Neanderthals in the museums and whatnot. Our skeletons and bone structures in the year 2007 is not the same as the ones excavated (you know, on the Discovery Channel and stuff).

This would show that really there was evolution between the humans of those days and us. Provided of course that the remains are real and not some hoax. I can't prove that.

Maybe you can go to a museum and check it out or something.

Just throwing something here. See if others can't help ya better.

Good one, though.

Answer 5

The assumptions before seeing evidence will determine how you interpret it. This is called a worldview.
A person’s worldview, whether it be Christian, humanist or whatever is a personal insight about meaning and reality. It is how a person interprets, through his or her own eyes, a personal belief about the world. A person’s worldview tries to give reasons for how the facts of reality relate and tie together. The summation of these facts provides the big picture into which the daily events of a person’s life should fit.

It is from this worldview that an individual derives an understanding, interpretation and response to the world in which he or she lives. To each individual, their own worldview should provide a coherent, but not necessarily authoritative, manner in thinking about their world. An individual’s worldview will be shaped by far more than the surrounding physical world. Religion, philosophy, ethics, morality, science, politics and all other belief systems that impact on that individual will play a role in shaping a worldview.

I agree that all the evidence I see leads me to conclude that evolution, meaning that life comes ultimately from non-life, is absurd!

Answer 6

An interesting fact or two...

The legend goes that Darwin lost a daughter to an illness at an early age, and was so angry that god coud do such a thing, that he set out to prove god didn't exist, and came up with the therory of evolution.

Darwin also was part of the 'glutton', or 'gourmet' club who used to seek out unusual species to eat. He once ate an owl,
armadillos, a chocolate covered rodent and even puma!


Homo sapiens sapians and apes actually evovolved from a common ancestor, though this elusive species has yet to be found. It is the 'missing link', and would've lived around 5 million years ago and is actually thought to have evolved from squirrel-like creatures which, in turn, evolved from hedgehogs, and prior to that, starfish.



There's no evidence without 'holes' for any argument really.
However, you may find these pages interesting:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html


Hope that helps : )

Answer 7

Many creationists seem to have the very narrow view that evolution means nothing more than the idea that man evolved from apes. However, the reality is that evolution is simply a word to describe a very real and observable natural process in which living organisms respond to environmental pressures.

Living organisms all have a bit of natural variations, particularly those that require genetic material from more than one source in order to reproduce. These variations cause some to have a bit of an advantage over others in the face of environmental pressures. Because more of those with a biological advantage survive they have a tendency to pass on that advantage to their offspring.

For more complex species it takes very many generations for new traits to be readily noticeable and/or be considered a typical attribute of the species. However, this phenomenon can be readily observed on a much shorter time scale with simpler organisms. I'm sure you have heard of strains of bacteria that have developed a resistance to certain drugs. This resistance comes as a direct result of *evolution*. The ones that were a bit more resistant to a particular drug survived and passed that resistance on to their offspring.

I fail to see how acknowledging this very real and observable natural mechanism in any way takes away from the concept that God created the universe.

Answer 8

Prove the world was made in 6 days. Prove there is a God. Prove the world is 6000 years old. Prove that no species has changed AT ALL in that time.

Right, now for the evidence - older rocks have more primitive life in them. Animals are all basically very similar - a human arm is almost exactly the same as a bat's arm. Why would God do this if he could create ANYTHING? The fish in Lake Victoria share almost all of their DNA with fish in nearby lakes, yet they are slightly different. Why would God make this happen?

There is absolutely loads of evidence for evolution, and none for God creating the world - other than it being written in a book.

Answer 9

I suggest the ardent Darwinisnts check out these book. because your all so open minded and all. Evolution a theory in crisis, by agnostic, Michael Denton. Also the icons of evolution by Jonathan Wells, I also suggest Micheal Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. The tenth edition deals with criticisms levelled at thim. I suggest reading these books for yourselves so you can get an acuurate picture of what they are and are not saying. One of the ciritcisms levelled at their critics is they make regular use of distortions and inflated rhetoric, burred distinctions and an eagerness to denegrate anything associatd with ID. For over fifty years stanley Miller and his researchers have tried to recreate the conditons in which early life could evolve. What the have consistantly run into amino acids tha have a fifty fifty mixture of left handed and right handed amino acids. Proteins only use the left handed type of building blocks, also called laevorotory or L amino acids. The problem with the left right mixture of both D and L amino acids became increasingly evident and resists all attempts to solve it.in short protein chains called polypeptides L amino acids have shown no preference to to other L types. Without a process to sort out the lefties from the right ones, how could a true protein chain with just left handed amino acids string itself together? I also find it interesting the amount of people who don't seem to understand that the many dog breeds they see are a product of intelligent design (the breeder) not random selection. If I want to have Samoyed pups I wouldn't breed my samoyed with a doberman. Dogs left to their own selecting would revert back to a mongeral breed. This is proven.

Answer 10

No they don't. There is no sample where one kind evolves into another kind such as monkey becoming a man. This micro and macro junk evolution is created to confuse. Environment has always been a major changing force to humans and animals and always will be. Since that evolving kind cannot be found then Darwin's theory concerning the origin of man is still false. So far we've had lies, frauds and confusion and it is so bad that evolution has lost any credibility. They force it down our children's throats because professors can't seem to say, "We've been riding a dead horse or we have been wrong."

The biggest mutant characteristic for changing man is sin. The Bible tells us this in thousands of ways. A curse, without a cause, does not come.

Answer 11

Charles Darwin was a friend of Karl Marx, and also dedicated his work to him. Evolution (big ban, life came from a rock, bacterias, birds, apes, humans etc are descendent from each other is a pagan belief, that is also promoted by fairytale stories such as the Grimms or Walt Disney. The frog being kissed turned into a human for example: kiss in this context is sex or rather evolution. The evolution myth was created to cut people's belief in God from the very first beginning. I am only retelling this knowledge, which is based on researches by The Prophecy Club, and DrDino.com (Kent Hovind). Espacially Kent Hovind goes into detail of this occurance.