Why believe in evolution?

Question

There is basically no evidence today for macro-evolution. A bird hasn't become a dog...etc. Now dogs do change from one type of dog to another but that is inside its kind. (micro-evolution) There is also no examples today of changes in genes that involve the gain of information. We have mutations but that is the loss of information. How can someone blindly follow the theory of evolution when so many things are against it?

well instead of attacking me how about actually showing examples?

I also didnt say anything about religion. People just assume religion when you go against evolution. Same thing with scientists..they are supposed to not be on any side when searching for evidence...but guess what..they dont and if they want evidence for evolution, they will search for that evidence alone and twist it and none for creation.

Answer 1

Generally people (IMO) Believe in it because it is the only scientific theory that everyone has heard about and that is continually trying to be proven and is taught in schools. If you want to have people think something, stick it in the schools, many don't question the 'why' so much as ask 'what's the answer?'

Supposedly there is/are some bones with similar structure to what they theorize the 'mid point' between the evolution would be- (an old monkey skeleton named Lucy, or girl, the skeleton is old and they think it is a 'half way' evolved skeleton, between human and monkey (forgot what type of monkey) this is just a basic over view, so don't rail on me for leaving out stuff, all cool. )

That's why, as to whether its true, I don't believe it. But that's me, to each their own. =D Luck to you!

(ps-above (below?) poster-, Don't tell people the religion they believe in is false, veeery touchy subject when you put it like that. Let everyone choose there own path lest you want to talk one on one, eh? Thanks. =D)
Reft

Answer 2

There is evidence for evolution. The distinction between micro and macro is a simplification bordering on ridiculous. You say that micro evolution exists: thank you. But have you considered what the consequences are of micro evolution, given a long period of time? How can macro evolution not exist, given that micro evolution does? What you need to understand, is that changing a bird to a dog would require millions of mutations to occur, that is millions of micro evolutionary changes, which thankfully, you admit exist. These millions of micro evolutionary changes do happen over millions of years.
What is it you consider a gain of information?
What is a loss of information?
Mutations are occurring which add information to genes. There are examples of variant haemoglobins which are caused by additions to genes, (Hb-Constant Spring). All that happens is that a section of one gene is spliced onto a section of another, if this is stable then it becomes permanent and is duplicated. If it is beneficial, it will remain in the population.
So, there you have an addition of genetic information.
Mutations are occurring which may change information, whether they add or lose information is irrelevant, a mutation could occur in which an oncogene which makes you susceptible to cancer is lost. This is a loss, but it is beneficial, so it will probably be maintained.
Again, I would suggest to you that evolution is evolution. The distinction between micro and macro is artificial, they are the same thing. If you accept one, then the other must exist.

It was not that long ago that even micro evolution was disputed, until the evidence became so compellingly simple that it had to be conceded. It was then that the distinction was declared; that micro existed, but not macro.
Soon the evidence for evolution will become so obvious, that only someone standing too close to the Bible will not be able to see it.

Answer 3

1. there are very few things/people against evolution in the first place except religious radicals who believe that everyone will go to hell. (officially, catholics are allowed to believe in evolution. They just must see it as through the willpower of God.)

2. mutations are not always a loss of information. mutations occur by many causes, including gene loss, as well as through disease infecting cells and changing the dna strands produced among other things.

3. Evolution happens over a REALLY LONG time-- we have just only witnessed with our own eyes the small evolutions; who is to say it is limited to any scale? the changes are made so gradually that you have to look at a much larger scale to get perspective.

4. If you really want to get into the idea of 'blindly following' something, go have a discussion with a priest. Everything we know- language, science, and math etc. was made up by humans, and we are limited by those devices. you could say that a person blindly believes that 2+2=4, and when they are asked why they would answer that it just is.

I really don't want to go much further other than to say that denying evolution would be ignorant.

4. It isn't being followed blindly.

Answer 4

You are mistaken. There is substantial evidence for evolution as an origin to the species. Also, macro-evolution IS NOT a bird becoming a dog. In fact, if a bird became a dog, that would disprove evolution. There are plenty of examples of changes in genes in which involve information being gained. You need to do some more research, as you have misconceptions on the subject.

Answer 5

Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. That does not mean that there is "basically no evidence today for macroevolution," as per your statement.

Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study. These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record.

If you want these explained in more detail, I've provided a link below. Sometimes understanding the answer to a question takes some effort and time. A two paragraph answer on Yahoo Answers isn't going to suddenly make you appreciate the amazing theory of evolution.

Answer 6

There is evidence for macro-evolution - keep up with the times and do some reading. No, we cannot see macroevolution in the lab, though we can see speciation-type events.
Do a pubmed search on macroevolution, if you're actually interested in reading as opposed to being a snark. I'll even start you off!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16835592&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Ever searched for information on mutations that lead to 'gain of information'? Guess what - we've got that too, but you'll have to learn a bit about genetics and development in order to understand it. Basically, a duplication event frees one version of the two to mutate without selective pressure. It's pretty easy for some enzymes to evolve to recognize different substrates, or for regulatory proteins to recognize slightly different sequences, altering expression patterns. Look up the HOX gene clusters for examples, to get you started, but that's just a start. Again, only if you're actually interested.

Following evolution is not a religion. Blind faith plays no role for those of us who don't treat it as a religion, but read, think, and analyze.

(editing to say, hey, I'd never looked at talkorigins - pretty awesome site. Nevermind the searches I recommended. Start there, then move on to primary literature if you're interested.)

Answer 7

There are two very strong examples that indicate that evolution is alive and well. The first is Darwin's own finches. Darwin noted that there were many different species of finches with unique beak shapes that seemed to determine the types of food that the birds ate. What he surmised and we now know is that these birds adapted to their given environment and evolved a beak shape that best worked in a specific place with specific food types.
The second example is far more recent and results from human activity. There is a type of moth that lives in Britain. Not too long ago most of the moths were very light colored and blended well with the light colored bark of the local trees. Coal pollution from industry darkened the bark of the trees. In response, more and more moths were seen with dark color that blended in with the dark trees. Very recently, with new rules regarding air pollution, the trees are now light colored again and more and more of the moths are being seen with the light color that blends in with the clean trees.
You asked for examples of evolution working in current times. This is two of many.

Answer 8

This is probably the worst "question" on evolution I have ever read. It is so littered with errors that if you are over the age of 10 I feel sorry for you.

"We have mutations but that is the loss of information." Come again? Where did you get that from, a book or your priest?

"from one type of dog to another but that is inside its kind". Ever heard of a ring species? Thought not.

Answer 9

Why believe in any garbage?
Religion. Evolution. It's all poppy-cock.
What people need to start doing is stop looking for stuff to believe in and start studying the evidence around them with fresh eyes. Maybe science would be farther along if so many weren't looking for evolutionary evidence of how many billions of years have passed and started looking at the evidence as it is, with things that really matter, like how we are going to stop screwing up our environment.
If they were true scientists, then the science is all that would matter. However, many just want a new religion to belong to called Evolution.

Answer 10

what many wrong things?
there is nothing wrong in not believing in the theory of evolution, but your arguments are false.

there has been life for 3500 millions of years and only the past 500 millions of years were by multicellular life, so life changes but not as fast as you would say