Every Evolutionist... explain this if you can...?

Question

Darwin's imagination...
Darwin never had formal education, in Biology... plus he hated Medicine... how can he become such a good scientist, he was just a amateur naturalist..
Biologyhttp://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html
anyway

Check the fossils you will see no major differences in animals for a very long time
http://www.harunyahya.com/

700 thousand years ago there were intellegent people... Homo Erectus engineers uh... lolol... so what is evolution?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721250.500-ancient-mariners--early-humans-were-much-smarter-than-we-suspected.html

The origin of mammals came from immaginary creatures maybe because there is no proof in Evolution where they came from... no fossil that proves it... or is there?

Maybe a fish turned into a frog... you try it... put yourself under water see if you turn into a marmaid or a sea monster... lol

How do you believe in Darwin? Explain..

Answer 1

you needed a spanking a long time ago by your mother the ape lady!

Answer 2

Personally, i do not belive in the Darwin theory. Can science every explain everything?
Many theories are in fact, flawed.
Eg. a basketball bounces straight upwards on the ground.
A tennis ball bounces straight upward from the ground. This proves the ground is flat.
But a ping-pong ball bounces in a deflected manner after hitting the ground. The ground i no longer flat.
*(well i appologize if this is not a very good example)
This just goes to show how somethings can be reasonable explained in one manner, but as more details and information is discovered, we realise that other conclusion can be drawn.

Why, do we have to believe that the Darwin theory is correct? We don't, which now stems many debates that may continue far into later years when everyone who is now reading this becomes old and haggard.

How can it be possible that evolution takes such a long time and yet our sun is still so young. And the differences between fossils are negligible.

I remember one time where i read an article about how a collection of different bones from various animals were used to form the skeletal frame of a "loch-ness monster" which did not exist, yet there were people who believe that the skeleton did infact belong to such a creature, but realized their folly when the creator exposed the truth.

If we did infact evolve from apes, what did they evolve from and what before them? The biblical explaination was how God created man. How did the world come into existence. Christians believe it was by the word of God, yet there are those who believe in the big bang theory. Which is although debatably impossible, the only possible explaination for those who are unable to accept the biblical explaination. (How can something so random like an explosion cause such intricate designs in our DNA and the large variety of flora and fauna?)

Quoting from the question "Darwin never had formal education, in Biology... plus he hated Medicine... how can he become such a good scientist, he was just a amateur naturalist.." This is relatively irrelevant to the thesis.

My stand on Darwin's theory is that it is false. Many theories once believed to be correct have been proven false. Some not proven false were still wrong. For a long time man believed the world was flat. But it was round.

The theory of the structure of an atom has changed more than 4 times before reaching our current belief at this timeframe.

Whatever bones Darwin claimed to have found could have very well been just of another species of apes. like how there are gorrilas and moneys and chimpanzees and well as baboons...
There are also many varieties of birds, you cannot expect one to believe that all of them evolved from one form to the other?

I do not wish to incur the wrath of anyone who is strongly in favour of Darwin, and i hope you will come to understanding that this is merely an expression of my opinions that can be publicly viewed in this virtual community.

Answer 3

1) Your comment about the education of Darwin is a sophism. It is known as the fallacy of origin. It means the person originating a theory doesn't change the validity, or lack thereof of that theory. The theory of evolution is still accepted today by the very extremely vast majority of the scientific community. It has been tried and true in the arena of scientific debate, which is competitive in the extreme.
2) 700 000 years is not a long time in evolutionary terms. Modern man is thought to be anywhere from 1 to 3 million years old. So yes, evolutionists would agree people 700 000 years ago were mostly biologically identical to us. That's not a problem. Other fossils do demonstrate variations, as well as a large number of extinct animals. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That's more than 6 000 times the number you stated. Plenty of time for evolution to take place.
3) Finally, you don't transform yourself into another species. Evolution works (very slowly) through your descendants. Your son may be taller than you. In fact, records show the average height of humans has tended to increase rapidly as societies became more efficient in providing food. That is an example of micro-evolution.

So there is nothing in your question to pose a challenge to the theory of evolution. What you state are facts, but the theory accommodates them quite well.

Answer 4

1) After Darwin people have done more work and there is much more support for evolution; the guy that invented the telegraph was an amateur scientist, but it helped lay the foundation for our modern communications today
2) ....uh, yeah. Evolution happens over a long period of time because it takes a long time for mutations to spread over an entire population. doesn't really prove your point their compadre.
3) yes...but Homo erectus went extinct.
4) although we have not found a common ancestor between say humans and chimpanzees, many skeletons we have show both ape and human like qualities
5) the theory of evolution doesn't say that at all. what it says is that maybe fish and frogs had a common ancestor that evolved into our fish and frogs of today

Answer 5

"Maybe a fish turned into a frog... you try it... put yourself under water see if you turn into a marmaid or a sea monster... lol"

So, clearly you're lacking even gradeschool level basic biology. That being the case, there's way too much we'd have to explain to you, and there's simply not enough room on this answer forum. (Plus it's pretty obvious you don't really care so it would be a waste of time).

I'll just suggest you go back and get your highschool diploma. It will help in so many ways. Alternately, there's plenty of biology books written at the gradeschool level that even you could follow.

Good luck.

Answer 6

There are those that will listen to reason, and then there are people like you. Evolution has tons of evidence, is perfectly logical, makes sense, and HAS been proven through the discovery of how DNA works. If you alter DNA enough, you can change a species into another species. Gamma rays from stars knock out sections of DNA which changes the DNA sequence of species. Over time this results in new species. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science disagrees with you, as do dozens of Nobel Prize Science winners.

How do I believe Darwin? Very well, thank you. Your arguments are illogical and nonsensical.

Answer 7

Oh dear... You've quoted one biased website (Harunyahya), which makes so many false assumptions and lies, I don't know where to start. For one, they've selectively left out fossils that would destroy their argument. For another, they've deliberately used examples of organisms that haven't evolved much but left out plenty of examples of organisms that have.

Then there's the issue of the New Scientist article. That our early humans were much smarter than we give them credit for doesn't disprove Evolution at all. If anything, it, like a lot of other recent scientific discoveries, actually proves that the age of the Earth is much older than we initially thought.

Answer 8

1) Darwin was a well educated man.
2) He worked with experts. One of his biggest errors was corrected by one expert and became fundamental to the understanding of evolution. Darwin looked at a series of birds and classified them based on the shapes of their bodies, heads and beaks. An expert corrected him, explaining they were all finches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
3) Gross features of successful forms change little. Subtle changes are noted over time.
4) There is a specific fossil species of man located on Flores island, where your "Homo Erectus engineers" travelled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
5) Fossil origin of mammals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritylodont
6) The fish to amphibians transition is well classified.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106807

I don't "believe" in Darwin. I look at the evidence.

Answer 9

Poppycock. Darwin was a trained naturalist and a leading expert on beetles and mollusks even before leaving for his trip on the Beagle.

Fossils are hard to form. Why would you expect a smooth transition to be found?

H. erectus engineers? That's complete and utter nonsense.

Mammals evolved from therapsids.

The last shows that you know nothing about evolution or science in general. You, sir, are an idiot.

Answer 10

Dude, you just slapped together a bunch of unrelated factoids and half truths! There can be no answer except to tell you - do some reading in real science books - evolution is a FACT, not a Theory. The evolutionary record gets more complete every year while the arguments against it are stagnant and reflect the fears and prejudices of the uneducated fringe.

Answer 11

Like I was telling the atheist fellow before, people generally cringe when somebody posts a ton of links and says 'here, read this.'

You're best off trying to summarize the information into a couple of concise paragraphs. As of right now, your argument against evolution at best is very disorganized, and difficult to follow.