2007-01-14 02:20:41 · 16 answers · asked by nataraj 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The easiest proof for evolution is people breeding animals for hundreds of years. Look at the wild wolf, and now look at all the varying species of domesticated dog.
Sure, they're all the same domesticated dog...but the differences can't be ignored! Wild wolves, even the varying species, all generally appear to be the same.
But in dog breeds you've got chihuahas, and spaniels, and retrievers, and dobermans, and rottweilers, and st. bernards, and pit bulls, and poodles.
And even in humans, we're changing all the time! Back in medieval times, we were a LOT shorter. But now, I'm guessing because of our easier life styles and lack of space, humans are taller than the used to be!
There's even a frog, the American Wood Frog I believe, that has evolved so that the very first piece of ice it comes into contact with in the winter...freezes it. It pulls in it's inner organs tight, pushes all it's body water around the organs and then the water freezes and the frog's heartbeat stops.
Then, come spring, by some reasoning I'm not sure is known yet, the heart and brain unfreeze, then the rest of the organs. And over a matter of a few hours to a day, the frog- who had been stiff and cold and "lifeless" for months...comes back to life in time for mating season.
It's things like that which lead me to lean towards evolution being true.
2007-01-14 02:57:23 · answer #1 · answered by Kailee 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is an absurdity. And it is NOT science. It is not a scientific theory.
I don't know how otherwise intelligent people could believe such a thing. All you have to look at are the laws of probability. Every mutation, the vast majority of which are harmful, which result in the death of the creature before it reproduces, make the whole idea of evolution statistically impossible.
It would be easier for the computer you are using to have evolved from the minerals of the earth, than for live to have spontaneously come into existence -by accident. And then, to have "evolved", again by accident into us. Where did consciousness originate from? Are chemical compounds aware?
Let's start asking the hard questions. Stop being so gullible.
2007-01-14 12:09:03 · answer #2 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Darwin's theory is based on a lot of things. It is true that living things can have mutations, but most (99.999%) mutations aren't passed on to an offspring. And, most (99.999%) of mutations are a decline not an improvement on the species. There is no way it could have happened the way he said it does.
One more thing. Don't take what people say and what Darwin said as the same thing. You must know what a theory is. It is an idea of what someone thinks could have happened. Darwin never said that is what happened. He said he had a theory and here is some evidence.
2007-01-14 10:25:13 · answer #3 · answered by Bates Water Gardens 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
much Darwin's theory has largely been debunked by scientists smarter than i . but he's the first person who noticed evolution over time, so is valued. His methods are more used in sociology today than in other fields, esp. given new understanding of genetics, the human form, etc
edit: darwin was much, much more than survival of the fittest, which was a theory made in conjugation with other scientists anyway
2007-01-14 11:25:02 · answer #4 · answered by smm 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't see a competing theory to describe the mechanisms of species evolution so the general principle of natural selection isn't really in doubt. And I should point out that Darwinism is a theory not that biological evolution occurs-that is fact.
2007-01-14 10:26:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course its true. The evidence was overwhelming in Darwin's day. The only people who don't accept it as true are people who have been deliberately brainwashed in to not accepting it as it contradicts their religious beliefs.
As for 'theory' I hope you know the special meaning of the word when used in a scientific context - Look up Gould's 'theory and fact' but basically its different from a hypothesis, its something that has been found to explain experimental results and has never been proven wrong, not the tiniest fault has been found after 140 years - if you consider how desperately theists have tried actively to find fault with it and contradict it then that result tells us something, I think.
2007-01-14 10:24:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
It is not true in it's present natural perspective but it can be true read with survival of the fittest in Natural read with spiritual perspective.
2007-01-14 13:58:54 · answer #7 · answered by ishan s 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, absolutely true and fits perfectly in to the science of ecosystems, genetics and about every other scientific field.
2007-01-14 10:49:45 · answer #8 · answered by Sage Bluestorm 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, many are still hard at it trying to prove it. But so far, all we have is more supposition. There is a tremendous amount of speculative support-but no facts yet.
2007-01-14 10:25:45 · answer #9 · answered by Desperado 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it is true cause it is universal, in today's world even there is survival of the fittest in all living beings, may it be human or any other species
2007-01-14 10:34:36 · answer #10 · answered by mita s 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋