LOL, your "bring it on" tag at the end made me laugh.
Hi there! Have a cookie, it's lemon snap, and a nice glass of iced tea, enjoy!
2007-04-23 19:39:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Darwin didn't invent the concept of evolution. Evolution means change through time. The idea that organisms have changed through time goes back to at least the 6th Century BCE, when the idea was first expounded upon by the philosopher Anaximander. Before Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace proposed the concept of Evolution by Natural Selection, there were many theories about the mechanism of evolution, the most famous being Lamark's theory of Evolution by Heritability of Acquired Characteristics which was about 60 years old when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.
Evolution is an observable fact:
1. It is a fact that many bacteria have changed through time to become immune to the antibiotics that once killed them.
2. It is a fact that cockroaches become immune to the poisons that may have killed their parents.
3. Some of the Galapagos finches observed by Darwin have evolved new beak structures to adapt to a change in available food. This particular example was observed in the last twenty years.
Macro-evolution (micro-evolution over successive generations) , the kind of evolution which creates new species is supported by the fossil record, the presence of pseudo-genes, the similarity of species, the fact that many species posses crude adaptations to survival, and the fact that some similar species may interbreed and give birth to sterile offspring (mules for example demonstrate that horses and donkeys have an ancestor in common).
It is true that natural selection is "only" a theory, then again so is electromagnetism, I dare you to go stick your finger in a light socket based on that premise. Or better yet, when Iran tests its first nuke, go stand at ground zero -- after all atomic power is only based on a theory.
2007-04-23 20:16:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cacaoatl 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe in both evolution and creation. The best example to understand evolution on earth is the following which is quite logical, simple and clear.
The whole period of evolution of man on earth which lasted millions of years, from the time he was a unicellular organism until he acquired the graceful and beautiful form it has today, can be condensed and observed in the nine months of gestation in the womb of our mother. In that environment, an *aquatic medium*, totally different from the world in which we live now, life begins as a unicellular organism and takes the shape of a beautiful baby at the end of it.
Life on earth started at sea. An aquatic medium just like the womb. "There must be something strangely sacred in salt, It is in our tears and in the ocean." ( Kahlil Gibran ) That unicellular organism was however always *destined to be* a man, and not an ape or anything else.
During the gestation period, the fetus may look like a tadpole or the fetus of an ape. Nevertheless it was always destined to become a human being. So even though fossil remains may prove that human beings at some point during their evolution, were balancing themselves from trees from their own tails, they were always human beings in potential and not apes. They were a *different creation* belonging to a different kingdom, the human kingdom, and not the animal kingdom.
.
2007-04-24 02:48:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by apicole 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No more than Newton meant Gravity as a joke but the stupidity of man thought he meant it literally.
You really have no idea what "peer review" means, do you?
2007-04-23 19:54:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by eldad9 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
When the Holy Spirit told Augustine which books should be included in the bible as a joke, was it the stupidity of man that lead Christianity to be the laughing stock of the gods?
2007-04-23 19:39:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tao 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think you meant some crazy delusional people created wild stories of supreme beings and fantastic tales as jokes, but the stupidity of man thought they were serious and listened.
2007-04-23 23:04:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Read Darwin's 'The Voyage of the Beagle', it is not only well-written, but you may find certain parts amusing too. I did.
2007-04-23 19:41:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by WMD 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I doubt it kiddo. And even if that was the case, the joke turned out to be the truth anyway. Goodie for us!
2007-04-23 19:58:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Darwin meant it in all seriousness, but it either way, it has been proven.
why still flog the dead horse...
2007-04-23 20:16:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by implosion13 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I doubt it. He took the ridicule of hundreds of scientists and religious people. Although if it was a joke, it was a pretty good one
2007-04-23 19:39:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋