Questions about evolution....?

Question

1. What are all the misconceptions about evolution?
2. What proofs about evolution are fact?
3. What are all the things about evolution that are still theory (not fact)?
4. If you're an atheist, would you say evolution alone, by itself, disproves the Bible?
5. If you're a Christian and accept evolution, what are your thoughts between it and the Bible?

Check back, if I think of more questions, I'll add them. Any edits please put "EDIT:" Thanks.

EDIT: My biggest misconception was man came from monkey. Who created the picture that shows a monkey turning into a man and why?

Answer 1

> "1. What are all the misconceptions about evolution?"

Way too many to list. Why? Because there is an enormous effort by creationists to promote misconceptions, while at the same time undermining the teaching of evolution in schools so that students actually learn what the correct theory is.

But if I had to pick the three biggest, stupidest misconceptions:

- "Humans came from monkeys." This is the classic CARTOON version of evolution, and no scientist believes that. Instead, humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor.

- "Evolution is a chain ... i.e. one species changes into another, which replaces it." This is the source of the "why are there still monkeys?" question, or the "why aren't monkeys still evolving?". Evolution is NOT a chain ... it is a constantly *branching* tree.

- "Evolution is random." This is so NOT true. In fact, the *entire point* of Darwin's theory of natural selection is that this is a NON-random process ... advantageous traits propagate better.

> "2. What proofs about evolution are fact?"

Scientists don't use the word "proofs", they use the word "evidence." As for what evidence are facts ... pretty much all of them, and there are *far* too many to list them.

But just to pick a few facts that are evidence:

- The process of evolution can be demonstrated in the lab, observed in nature, induced in organisms (by selective breeding, or by isolation), and measured (by measuring the alelle change in a population.
- The fossil record is full of transitional forms.
- The genetic and molecular (DNA) evidence shows clear relationships between all organisms ... these aren't just similarities in functions, but specific sequences (basically typos) in the useless DNA that has no function (junk DNA).
- Vestigial structures: E.g. in your calf is a muscle called the plantaris. It has no function in humans, but in apes is used for grasping with the feet.
- Homologous structures: E.g. the 5 bones in the mammal inner ear match perfectly the 5 bones in the reptilian hinged jaw ... evidence that these bones were repurposed for a different function.
- Embryological evidence: E.g. leg buds in dolphin embryos. Gill folds in mammal embryos (including us). Tails in human embryos.
- Far too many to list.

> "3. What are all the things about evolution that are still theory (not fact)?"

This is one of those misconceptions about science that creationists also love to perpetuate.

The difference between "theory" and "fact" is not the degree of truth ... a "theory" does not graduate to become a "fact." They are two very different types of statements. A theory is an *EXPLANATION* of facts. A theory can never *become* a fact.

The theory of evolution is and always will be a theory ... just like the theory of gravity is and always will be a theory. This does not mean that these are just "guesses" ... it means that they are **explanations backed by evidence** ... that is what the word "theory" means in science.

> "4. If you're an atheist, would you say evolution alone, by itself, disproves the Bible?'

Welll, I can't answer that b/c I'm not an atheist. But in my opinion, NO! Evolution neither proves nor disproves the Bible. It is only if you cling to an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible that it runs into problems with evolution.

> "5. If you're a Christian and accept evolution, what are your thoughts between it and the Bible?

See my previous answer. But to reiterate ... the schism between evolution and the Bible is imaginary ... and it is not produced by scientists or people who believe in evolution ... it is produced entirely by religious leaders who treat people like children and insist that they read the Bible like a children's story ... complete with a magical wizard who created the universe in 6 days, a talking snake, a fish that swallowed a man, and a man who at the ripe age of 800 built a boat so big it could hold members of every single species on the planet, save them from a vengeful flood, and then begin (did I say he was 800 years old?) to repopulate the planet with the help of his three sons and their respective (and truly *underappreciated*) wives.

IMO, it is these religious leaders who have failed miserably at their jobs as stewards of the faithful. Rather then give deep theological teaching about how the Bible still has huge worth in a world of constantly changing science ... these leaders instead wage a relentless war *against* science and reason and lead people into having to choose between the two. These are not leaders. These are parasites.

Answer 2

> Questions about evolution....?
Yes, there are. That's why we call it the "Theory of Evolution" instead of the "Law of Evolution."

> 1. What are all the misconceptions about evolution?
a) Fundies like to misinterpret the word "theory." They do not realize that a scientific theory has lots of evidence to back it up. Creationism is not a theory. It's a speculation. There is no evidence to back up Creationism.
b) Fundies like to add abiogenesis and cosmology questions when they ask about evolution. The theory of evolution does not cover "How did the universe come into existence?"

> 2. What proofs about evolution are fact?
a) Microevolution is fact. True-breeding point mutations can be produced and observed. You'll do it in your Junior genetics lab class with fruit flies.
b) Intermediate evolution is fact. Mini-dachshunds are descended from wolves. Corn is descended from a non-corn ancestor, probably teosinte.

> 3. What are all the things about evolution that are still theory (not fact)?
a) Macroevolution is both theory and fact. It cannot be proven (by dint of not being able to go back in time to generate comprehensive genealogies), and therefore is referred to as "the Theory of Evolution."
b) We don't know what happened at the time of the "Cambrian Explosion" or even if this was a real event, as opposed to being just an artifact of lack of good fossils from before that time.

> 4. If you're an atheist, would you say evolution alone, by itself, disproves the Bible?
Nope. But it does suggest that Moses is giving some false impressions in the Book of Genesis.

> 5. If you're a Christian and accept evolution, what are your thoughts between it and the Bible?
I'm a Pascalian Protestant, which is a very minimal sort of Christianity. A guest pastor at my church said "if you hold the Bible under a microscope, you'll find flaws." My ex-girlfriend says "the Bible isn't a science book. It isn't a history book either."

The Bible isn't perfect and inerrant. It contains stories too -- stories that aren't literally true.

Answer 3

Can we seriously get off this topic already?!! People in support of evolution, intelligent design, or any other theory, understand this: ***You are not convincing anyone to change their views on yahoo answers!*** This is especially true if you insult the opposing view by making it seem foolish instead of presenting a positive argument for position. Here's an idea, seek out material in support of both sides (or any other views there may be) and encourage others to do the same. Once you've done that, ***KEEP IT TO YOURSELF*** because anyone who doesn't care enough to take an honest look at all the arguments doesn't care what you think. They are interested only in maintaining their views.

Answer 4

Evolution started on a wrong premise and ended up in as a scientific mess.
What is the calculable probability that an accident will result in constructive design?
How come the fossil record is no more supporting evolution?
How do new specie discovery and biodiversity fit into evolution?
Why do living organisms not use both Levo-and dextro-rotatory amino acids.
Which experiment that tinkers with chromosomes even extra chromosomes supports constructive design or behaviour?
What are the experimentable and replicable facts that makes evolution scientific theory?
No answer from evolution.........or none exist.

Answer 5

The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J0JNU

That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html


Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Answer 6

From the standpoint of creationists/inellegent design backers, nearly every valid point scientists make about evolution is misconception. Scientists have no misconceptions about evolution.

Maybe to better answer this question, a definition of terms is needed. Evolution is a large change in something over a peroid of time due to the accumulation of smaller changes. The theory of evolution is how this change occurs in biological entities. A scientific theory (such as the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, germ theory, cell theory, etc.) is a large group of hypotheses supported by either hard, empirical evidence or infered/deductive evidence.

Many people (creationists, especially) want to confuse the definition of a general theory and a scientific theory. In common use, saying you have a theory about something generally means you think X occurred because of Y. It doesn't have to stand up to the rigorous peer-review and empirical research that scientific theories do. Scientific theories are usually about broad, general observations of the natural world that are supported by the work of a number of scientific disciplines. Included in the theory of evolution is support from the fields of chemistry, microbiology, ecology, genetics, virology, geology, and paleontology, to name a few.

No, theories are not absolute fact, because there may be a few parts of the theory about which you can say "We're just not sure." Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to have all the answers. But it has the best set of peer-reviewed, empirically backed explanations for the current observation of the diversity of life on Earth. In the case of the theory of evolution, the origins of life is one of those unknown things. Here are some of the ideas currently being investigated regarding origins of life:

Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.

Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.

Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.

Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.

The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).

Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.

And after all that, the explanation could also be something that no one has thought of yet. But that's how science works. Just because one part of a theory is not known or not completely understood, we don't reject the entire theory. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We use investigatve scientific inquiry to find the answers, then put those answers in front of all other scientists and say "Check my methods and analysis. Make sure this is being done properly."

I can't speak on behalf of atheists, because I am not one, so I won't address question 4.

My thoughts about evolution and the Bible? I believe that the Bible is the work of humans (probably inspired by God), and humans are fallible. In believing this, although it is inspired by God, I believe that, because of various mistranslations, contradictions within the text, and the hegemony of the church in the past, the Bible cannot be read entirely as literal history. That doesn't mean it is of any less value to me spritually. It just does not have any relevance to my understanding of the theory of evolution.

EDIT: I think I addressed all the questions...makes for a long post. If you want to check out a great point-counterpoint to most creationist claims/evolution responses, go to TalkOrigins.org. Not only does it make reasonable sense, it has a huge source citation for peer-reviewed articles, science texts, and other sources.

EDIT: I'm not sure who originally drew that picture, but it was created a long time ago, before the theory of evolution was as developed as it is today. There's been a wholesale discounting of that picture as anything indicative of our currect knowledge of the theory of evolution.

Answer 7

As Hugo de Vries has said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe. We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information. There are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant.

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind; no new information was produced. What are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. So, the question is, can mutations produce new creative information?

Dr. Lee Spetner (a highly qualified scientist who taught at John Hopkins University) said, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Warner Gitt, in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”
Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain. For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell wall not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this is always the case. Evolution requires new creative information, not a loss of information. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

OK, what about homology? Don’t we see similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals? Evolutionists like to argue that these similarities prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor (common descent).

First of all, there are plenty of problems—like homologous structures that are not produced by homologous genes or the same embryological development, or homologous structures in animals that are not suppose to have a close common ancestor (no evolutionary relationship), and so forth.

But the thing is, homology can just as easily point to a common designer; it fits quite comfortably with the creation model.

As Dr. Don Batten has said, “Think about the original Porsche and a Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both had air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarities. Why did these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!”

And as Dr. Jerry Bergman said, “...the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs. All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tires are round because this design is superior for the function of most tires. A tire homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling.”

Dr. Carl Weiland said the same: “By its very nature, creation involves the intelligent application of design information, which it would seem logical to conserve. For example, if the pattern of the forelimb bones in a frog works well, following good bioengineering principles, then it would seem reasonable for the same principles to be used in the other creatures, modified to fit their particular needs.”

Answer 8

I just think that if it has been proven that other animals have evolved, then why not us? birds have supposedly evolved from certain dinosaurs. Why is it so impossible to believe that we evolved from a different form of human...maybe not monkeys but something that doesn't exist anymore.

Answer 9

There are many Misconceptions about evolution.
The word is used to mean many things. The peppered moths are acclaimed as evolution when it is simply a change in 2 populations of moths.
Natural Selection is also acclaimed as evolution when it is just selection acting on existing information.
Neo-darwinian evolution requires the addition/creation of vast amounts of new information - no mechanism exists to do this. Mutations are either info neutral or lossy.

Many evolutionary 'proofs' are nothing of the kind - often relying on evolutionary assumptions in the first place.
For example rocks are dated by fossils, and fossils are dated by rocks!

I'd be happy to discuss off-line. Easier than in just a single Q & A

I'm afraid you'll get a lot of insult hurling from the evolutionists.
Better for everyone, if discussion revolves around the facts.
Check out this link for detailed refutation of evolution
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3302

Answer 10

1. They say men come from apes. How come apes stop evolving ? We still have apes nowadays.
2. Bones of dinosaurs are digged out.
3. How does Big Bang lead to the existence of one celled organism and how did one celled organism evolved into a human being ?
4. No because I would ask if Big Bang is a physical happenning, then what constitudes life ? Here of course I am referring to the soul and spirit of a man
5. May be at the first creation. Not men but those first animals, reptiles. What happenned to them ? If there are dinosaur bones now, then exactly when was their existence ? What make them disappear all fo a sudden ?