Is it time to answer creationist claims that evolution can't be viewed or proven, again..?

Question

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Answer 1

yes but how life started cannot be proven. i believe that evolution is creationism. maybe "God" created life, intending for it to evolve. rather that adam physically rising out of the earth, it could be a metaphore that life was created from the protiens in the earth that "God" created. again, both sides are impossible to prove, not just one.

Answer 2

Evolution sounds right to me, but to be honest, I thought there would be more hard evidence available, not just laboratory tests and the few examples always quoted (like the finches). It's not like it hasn't been investigated thoroughly. Throughout history, many scientific hypothesis were thought to be correct because every test produced evidence that was in accord with the theory. Until one day scientific advances proved the theory wrong. I don't think the theory of evolution is wrong, I just think science lays claim to knowing how everything works, when it only thinks it knows how everything works.

Answer 3

This is true when you water certain definitions down in order to call it something. Eventually you can call the separate generations of fruit flies Evolutionary.

If that doesn't do it for you, just water the definition down a little, like they did on Evolution 101.

Answer 4

i'm in absolute accord with what you have reported. the priority is that, even with all the information to the different, and none to assist their very own reason, faith maintains to be the main useful sort of blinker obtainable to mankind. this is the underlying challenge with arguing with a creationist or clever layout supporter. that is not considerable what information you produce they desire their fairy-tale worldwide of delusions. lies, contradictions and hypocrisy. That the impact of those fully deluded persons ability that the companies (church homes) that fleece them of their funds declare tax exempt prestige, and their leaders (even people who demonstrably contain themselves in drug-fuelled gay orgies against all the tenets of their very own meant faith - and that i've got not got any objection to consenting adults enjoying themselves thusly, however the hypocrisy from a non secular chief is untenable whilst it so flagrantly is against all he preached to the folk who made him wealthy by using their donations) effectively foyer governments for greater issues and kickbacks, sends countries to conflict ensuing interior the ineffective deaths of hundreds of thousands and preys on the gullible and the vulnerable of techniques is techniques boggling. If David Suzuki, David Attenborough, John Ralston Saul, Richard Dawkins or the ninety seven% of NAS scientists who're atheists or a minimum of agnostic might desire to wield such impact think of of ways lots greater suitable the worldwide could be.

Answer 5

Hon, you're talkin over their heads. Gotta add some more "thou shall not"'s or something. Throw in a burning talking plant maybe?

Seriously though, they've already dismissed evolution. Explain till you're blue in the face, but they've already stopped listening. =(

Answer 6

enough of the psuedo questions which are actually rants.
enough of the "Is it time..." posts you contantly make!

Get a blog....that is what they are for. If you put this on a blog, maybe people would read it, rather than getting ticked off when they encounter another rant.

Answer 7

microevolution sure that is just adaptation to ones enviornment. macroevolution is just dumb liberals from berkley on an acid trip

Answer 8

What happened to Neanderthals? Remember when Evolutionary theory thought they were related to modern humans and this has been shown to be false.

Answer 9

I still say creation and evelution works hand in hand. Take Christianity for example: to God time means nothing, one of his days could be a billion years for us. Therefore each "day" that God did something in the Bible he just started the evelution prosses for that particular thing.

Answer 10

Any creationist like myself who gives a blanket dimissal of evolution is foolish, but this does not in any way prove that a God does not exist. I think many stereotype evolution as anti-creationist and therefore dismiss it too quickly.