I haven't heard a viable argument for it by anyone (or a viable argument against by anyone either for that matter)
I know my answer is that it is just a theory...unproven. Until the scientific communty can find a way to bring all the sub postulates of the Theory together in such a way that everyone (for the most part) agrees, it will remain an unproven theory...
2007-05-29 10:56:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
The reality of evolution doesn't require any arguments. The evidence speaks for itself, overwhelmingly. Those who would argue about such a matter have already chosen to avoid the evidence, and there is no argument that can overcome ignorance by choice.
2007-05-29 17:26:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by PaulCyp 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fact that the second human chromosome has vestigial telomeres in the middle and a vestigial centromere exactly as predicted if the diverging species had 2 of their chromosomes fused to produce the 23 pairs today as opposed to the 24 that the chimps and the likes have.
And I am not a Christian, sorry.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf
2007-05-29 17:26:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Lynus 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Two things argue for the validity of evolution:
- The physical evidence
- The logical progression of the process
God always works with the natural laws of the universe to achieve His ends. If you look at His limited involvement in our current physical world, chances are that He also created the world in a minimally involved way... just sets things in motion, and tweaks it now and then.
2007-05-29 17:34:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by MumOf5 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You do realize many Christians, such as myself, fully accept evolution?
The strongest pieces of evidence:
- The fossil record. Certain animals are clearly transitional, or closely related to transitional forms, such as Archaeopteryx (dinosaurs to birds), Homo Sapiens Idaltu (Erectus and Sapiens Archaic to Sapiens Sapiens), and Dicynodonts (Cynodontid reptiles to mammals.)
- The non-protein generating sections of the genome. They mutate faster between species than the protein-generating sections. This is what you'd expect if evolution were true, because mutations there in the 'junk dna' hurt nothing. Only rarely does a mutation in functional DNA benefit, so it is more conservative, and the discrepancy is strong evidence of evolution
- Mitochondrial drift between species: the differences in non-sexually reproducing mitochondrial DNA should match the fossil record and Linnaeus's classification systems in terms of showing proximity of relationships between species. And it does - it shows birds, for instance, as closest to the crocodilia. (There are some peculiar anomalies, such as South American rodents, but generally this holds up well.)
2007-05-29 17:28:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by evolver 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think that depends completely on your perception of evolution. To me evolution is gradual adaptation of a species to it's surroundings. In which case the evidence is astoundingly obvious. Now, the traditional view if evoltuion of one species into another is a different story.
2007-05-29 17:26:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Randi 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Bible does say God created the heavens and the earth by his spoken word, but the Bible doesn't say what process this all took.
A thousand years is but a day to the Lord, so the seven days of creation could be 7,000 days....the point is no one truely knows the process God used to make planet earth.
2007-05-29 17:28:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Caesar Jeff 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There IS NO argument for evolution...all the evidence points to creation.
Or you could just go with the "I know how old the rocks are by how old the fossils are, and I know how old the fossils are by how old the rocks are" runaround. Good luck convincing people with that one.
2007-05-29 17:32:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by ~*~Starchild~*~ 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
All I can say is the what we today call "evolution" was simply God's word in action.
The Bible says God created.....
Created does not necessarily mean *POOF* there it is.
Perhaps God crafted a process and set it in motion. And we see the results of this process and call it "evolution".
The problem is, we are INSIDE of the creation, and God is outside. He can see the whole picture, while we can only see what our perspective allows us to see.
2007-05-29 17:29:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Barry F 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it makes more sense than the whole Creation In 7 Days malarkey.
I imagine the Maker is more complex than we can understand.
And here's something I find fascinating...the pro-life Christians who look to science to prove they are right, and then ignore science when it goes against their beliefs. Funny, no?
2007-05-29 17:27:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by anonevyl 4
·
0⤊
0⤋