Evolution on the decline...?

Question

I've been reading EVERYWHERE up on the facts of evolution... And simply, it seems as if this "theory" is going under... So many fossils have been discovered... Yet, they have only found such a minute amount of "transitional fossils" (many already found to be hoaxes...) When will people finally understand that its a THEORY... It has yet to be proven, and may never be... So PLEASE, quit using it as "factual evidence" for any arguement....

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm

Not sure how reliable sources like this may be... But there are soooooooo many out there just like this that refute evolution... And theres facts seem pretty solid

Not to mention... Microevolution (Or adaptation...) has NOTHING t do with macroevolution... So your little breeding logic doesn't make sense...

“All of the complex invertebrates appear fully-formed without a trace of ancestors or transitional forms linking one to the other.... If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found! Even more convincing, if that can be said, is the total absence of intermediates between invertebrates and fishes, and the total absence of ancestors and transitional forms for each major class of fishes... It is physically impossible for millions of years of evolution to take place, producing a great variety of major types of fish, without leaving a trace…The evidence from the fossil record ... has established beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has not taken place on the earth.”

The fossil record and modern sciences refute evolution... its simple... There have been millions of fossils recovered... and all evolutionists can come up with is... "Lucy... no... um... PILTDOWN MAN!?!... hmmm nope... umm.. ARCHAEOPTERYX.... hmmm maybe? ... " It all seems like a bunch of guessing and "faith" if you will IMO... And look up the facts... I dont need to post it all here...

Answer 1

This kind of question is getting really lame. It's been posted so many times. You're making assertions about which you know nothing. The lack of transitional fossils probably has to do with punctuated evolution. . .do you even know what that is?

Go cry on the Religion board.

Answer 2

I'm sorry sweet pea but you have your facts confused....
Do you know how hard it is for a fossil to form????? Its only a tiny fraction so we are lucky to get the few that we have!!!

Most form under water, so for a plant or animal living in a dry area, the chances of fossils forming are practically zero!!

Um your piltdown man excuse...well thats a hoax we know that, so don't bother including it...but yes there is Lucy as well as around 19 others speices of primative primates ( and related in some way to humans....some looking likely to being direct ancestors, while others are cousins eg Homo neaderthalensis.

Despite what you are babbling, you actually show no understanding of how evolution works!!! There is example after example where there are TRENDS in features....ok we don;t have ALL the transitional forms, but remember we only have a tiny fraction of the fossils anyway.
Oh can i mention dinosaurs??? Do you accept that they exist?? Why do they look so different to anything today???
hmmmmmm could it be....evolution??/
If you take fossil evidence as a whole, the oldest rock ONLY has the MOST PRIMATIVE organisms ( Bacteria) and then as rock is younger and younger we find more and more complex plants and animals ( with specific ages or eras of time...like the carboniferous....where COAL was laid down in the age of the ferns!!! No angiosperms existed then...and I'm pretty sure it was before the gymnosperms as well)........what does that mean????

Answer 3

Firstly, evolution is not proven by the fossil record. It provides some excellent structure/function relationships--it shows that several successful body types have been selected throughout time. DNA and modern molecular biology provide the framework of traits that allows the theory of evolution to be applied towards these fossils, Darwin was trying to explain why there was all these animals that no longer existed, and one only needs to watch a lion catch a Gazelle to imagine how evolution can work on a visual level.

Secondly, evolution is living fact every time we have kids. If your child's DNA is different from yours and your spouse's, than evolution was successful.

Evolution as defined by science is this: A change in the frequency of alleles (traits) from generation to generation.

DNA is the proof of evolution. It is the genetic program that carries our molecular heritage.

There just isn't any steam in an anti-evolutionary argument anymore... not since Watson and Crick discovered DNA. In order to disprove evolution, the first thing you have to do is disprove atomic theory, this is because it is atomic theory that allows us to describe DNA and thusly evolution in such great detail. You can look at 10 species of plants, and they all have the same genetic code for a metabolic protein. This means that without this protein, or trait, that the plant would die. The only way to say that this explanation is wrong, is to say that the chemistry is wrong, (when it clearly isn't.) So, to disprove evolution now, you MUST also disprove atomic theory.

And good luck doing that my friend. I wish you luck on that PhD thesis!

Anyone who really wants to find out what's REALLY going on in the whole evolution/creationism debate just needs to read one book by Massimo Piggliucci, a primary source for my argument.

Answer 4

The existence of evolution is not disputed by any scientists. It exists and is well-documented. You know how humans breed dogs and horses for different traits? That's evolution. If it didn't work, those jobs wouldn't exist.

What is (barely) disputed is that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. The overwhelming majority of evidence suggests we did, but various religious organizations see this as a threat to their authority, so they "preach the controversy" that evolution is just a theory. It's a shame that so many people buy into this ideologically-driven "science", rather than real, factually-driven science.

Answer 5

> "Not sure how reliable sources like this may be... But there are soooooooo many out there just like this that refute evolution..."

Aagh. That is the WORST reason in the world to conclude that "evolution is on the decline." If you're not sure how reliable they are, then the fact that there are a lot of them doesn't make them more reliable!

Have you even considered the fact that there are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many *more* sites that actually *support* evolution ... and in this case I *am* quite confident of the reliability of ...
Stanford University: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/
Harvard University: http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html
UC Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Oxford University: http://www.oxford-evolution.com/LOGIN?sessionid=8deed8a5c4d509ae3f1eee8f2d860e97&authstatuscode=400
Cambridge University (Darwin College): http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/lectures/books/evolution.shtml
UCLA: http://www.ess.ucla.edu/huge/
MIT: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/9/
... and on and on.

So really ... if you've been reading EVERYWHERE on the facts of evolution, you are reading in the wrong places.

Have you actually tried ASKING a scientist (someone with, like, a PhD. in biology or something)? Reading a real science book?

Go to a biologist's conference and say "evolution is on the decline" and you will get the same look as if you went to an astronomy conference to suggest that the "round-earth theory is on the decline." Really ... try to picture that look.

Answer 6

i'd like to address your "lack of invertebrate" evidence, what do you think trillobites are? they are invertebrates, also the soft parts decompose so fast that they can't leave any fossil evidence behind. also the biggest debate in human evolution right now is the multi-regionalists vs, the out of africa people. much of the evidence pointing towrd the out of africa model. do some reading in some real scientific publications and not just extremist websites

if you wanted to know how to get rid of a tumor in your brain you would go to a brain surgeon right? not a lumber jack, so why would you want to go to anyone but the people doing the research in the actual field versus the people who just want you to believe blindly and not to question their teaching?

Answer 7

I am getting really tired of this type of question. You do not even know what a scientific theory is, and it does not seem like you care to learn. I am really sorry for that. You say you have been reading "everywhere". What does that mean, scientific journals and textbooks...or church literature.

Answer 8

Umm, dude... Evolution true it may be a theory, but it sure as hell has more facts than the bible. Now don't get me wrong. We all have our opinions. The truth of the matter is we probably will never know.

Answer 9

You are either hilarious, or incredibly ignorant. But I'm going to go with the first. This has an amazing blend of sarcasm and satire.

Answer 10

Much verbosity to no avail. The only decline is in your mind; literally.