Followers of Evolution?

Question

All of us here dispute creation vs. evolution.Why is it taken seriously when Darwin himself said in "Origin of Species" that if we can't find predecessor fossils to the Cambrian fossils his theory not be taken seriously?I so far cannot find any transitional fossils that have not already been debunked.Even the former noted evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson called the sudden appearance of many types of complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks the "major mystery of the history of life.
I'm beginning to see more and more as I read along that Darwin himself didn't believe it was true.

Please,only serious answers.

Actually Craig,I didn't read it on a creation website.Sorry.

Everybody's gotta have a whiner,don't they waah?

Like I said Paul,I didn't get it from a creation website.

Answers like J.P's is what I'm after.He is curtious and professional.I did ask a valid question,and in turn he gave me a valid answer.Got to wait to give him the ten,though.

Dwali,I'm not a right wing nutcase.I asked for the opinion on Darwin's comment in the book,not for sarcasm.

Anya,I would agree.Science is uncovering mysteries of the world everyday.

Answer 1

First, there are pre-cambrian fossils. However, you won't find them in nice beautiful display pieces, because most of them are microscopic impressions of algaes and other soft-tissue animals too small for the naked human eye to see.

To claim no transitional fossils have been found is intellectual dishonesty at worst and ignorance at best. During Darwin's day, indeed they could not find the fossils needed to help support his theory. Palentology was an infant science. However, large strides have been made since and we have literally millions of transitional fossils. In fact, we have a complete fossil record of the development of the hominid line and great ape line that clearly demonstrates on fossil basis alone the split between the two lines -- a split that is demonstrated in our genetics as well (one of our chromosome pairs contains to centromeres because it is the head-to-head fusion of two ape chromosomes).

Answer 2

"I'm beginning to see more and more as I read along that Darwin himself didn't believe it was true."

Darwin never came to disbelieve in evolution. He was a enough of a scientist to admit when there were problems that he did not know the solution to. That does not mean that the great preponderance of evidence did not still point to an evolution of species.

Some people think that because it is called the "THEORY of evolution" that it is not something that we can be sure of. Wrong!! Scientists do not call something a "theory" unless it is firmly established as being factual and explains a phenomenon well.

Take the Theory of Relativity for example. I know of no physicist who doubts its truthfulness. It has passed every test given. Yet it is still called the THEORY of Relativity, not the LAW of Relativity.

My chemistry textbook says the following about theories in the section about the scientific method:

"Once a set of hypotheses that agrees with the various observations is obtained, the hypotheses are assembled into a theory. A theory, which is often called a model, is a set of tested hypotheses that gives an overall explanation of som natural phenomenon.

It is very important to distinguish between observations and theories. An observation is something that is witnessed and can be recorded. A theory is an interpretation - a possible explanation of why nature behaves in a particular way. Theories inevitably change as more information becomes available. For example, the motions of the sun and stars have remained virtually the same over the thousands of years during which humans have been observing them, but our explanations - our theories - for these motions have changed greatly since ancient times...

The point is that scientists do not stop asking questions just because a given theory seems to account satisfactorily for some aspect of natural behavior."

That last paragraph demonstrates the difference the creationist and the real scientist. The creationist starts with an assumption, God created everything in six days, and makes sure that any research he may do comes to the same conclusion. A real scientist continually examines the facts and if a theory needs to be changed or replaced, he is not afraid to do so.

As for the difference between a theory and a natural law, again I look at my chemistry textbook.

"Note the difference between a natural law and a theory. A natural law is a summary of observed (measurable) behavior, whereas a theory is an explanation of behavior. A law summarizes what happens; a theory (model) is an attempt to explain why it happens."

As for transitional fossils, see the website below.

Answer 3

So you say that there was not evolution before the Cambrian period, fine. What about since then? What about the mountain of evidence supporting evolution in the last couple millions of years? What about the observed evolution of things like TB? What about the genetic evidence? Basically you can either chose science (evolution) or other forms of information. If you chose not to use science, that's fine, but don't make up false claims. Almost all transitional fossils have not been debunked. At least according to neutral websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

Answer 4

Darwin pointed out that the Cambrian Explosion was problematic. There are several good explanations for the rapid development of diversity. This was the period when plants had produced enough oxygen to allow animals to have far more energy efficient metabolisms once they adapted to toxicity of oxygen. The creatures that arose had a segmented anatomy. This suggests that the homeobox genes which define development for each segment were allowing for rapid variation. Many "bizarre" forms briefly appeared, but just a few became common.

Answer 5

Darwin never expressed any doubt that his theory of natural selction was true. He did note a number of problems that were not fully addressed by his theory, and which he was not in a position to explain. Further research has explained some of those apparent problems, and today we know that the process of biological evolution is far more complex than Darwin imagined, just as is true of virtually every other scientific process that has ever been discovered. That is the nature of science. Further research solves some mysteries and uncovers additional mysteries to be investigated. There are "missing links" in every area of scientific investigation. Otherwise that area of scientific research would simply cease to exist. However, the fact that there are numerous missing links in our understanding of cancer doesn't invalidate the science of oncology. Rather, it is those very missing links that validate the research being done.

Incidentally, the phrase "creation vs. evolution" is meaningless. It is obvious that nothing evolves until it exists. Therefore the fact of evolution necessitates the fact of creation.
.

Answer 6

You say "we all of us here dispute creation vs evolution". But that's just not true. Most Christians (including Roman Catholics and most of the Protestant groups) accept evolution. So do Muslims. So do Atheists. So who are the "all of us here"?

You don't need to have see every single step along the way to see that evolution is happening. It's happening now, as new species are appearing (for example Nectarines). It's easy to see how the good ones will survive. It's also a perfectly good explanation of what happened in the past, and the only one that fits all the facts.

Answer 7

One doesn't "follow" evolution, just as one doesn't "follow" the theories of relativity or "obey" the laws of thermodynamics. It is information of a scientific nature.

Further, whether Darwin said he believed it or not, (which story appears to be apocryphal) the preponderance of the evidence bears out the theory.

I would suggest that you read Simon Winchester's "The Map That Changed The World" to find more information.

Answer 8

Evolution and Creation are the same. Creation is evolution, everything that God has made were made in a very slow dynamic creation. Think about the cronology of both theories. Everything are the same in terms of cronology. The Bible simplified the story of creation for the purpose of making people of ancient times understand these complex theory of evolution and for the sake of a more poetic book. Creation was not a product of a "There shall be Man!" and poof there was Man. Creation was and is a dynamic power of changing the world. The world is creation and the world was and still is in the process of creation. Creation, however, has been slowing its pace because of the fact that in the 7th Day God rested. Creation is no longer creating and changing the world dramatically. It is now in a pace slow enough just to keep the world maintained. These are my opinion and I do not expect people to take this theory seriously.

Answer 9

Sorry, but not all of us dispute evolution. I'm sure Darwin had some questions about his own theory. It was new then. Since then we've found transitional fossils and have even seen evolution (macro-evolution) happening in the lab and nature. There are still many mysteries surrounding early evolution, but that's not because the theory isn't sound. It's because the events are so old and we haven't gotten many of those details.

Your information is sorely out of date.

Answer 10

Oy vey, where to start?

First many fossils have been discovered since Darwin's time. The majority have not been "debunked" (piltdown man is an exception) . If you really want to improve your understanding of evolution see the link below.