evolution question to all serious evolutionists: Evolution vs Wrong Option?

Question

Evolution was once supposed to be a placeholder, a theory, until scientists could provide an explanation, and an unequivocal proof of how we got here. Why has it become The Answer? Why are scientists, of all people, so closed minded to other possibilities? Fossils and DNA shows POSSIBLE linkages. Yet, it seems that they're building one theory on top of another, without first validating the first theory.

No one knows how we got here. It is simply impossible to determine. The answer to this question is not yet conceivable by any scientists, or religious leader. Why do evolutionists insist that evolution is the obvious answer?

aite people, read, just because i'm questioning evolution doesn't mean i believe in a 7-day fairy tale with adam and eve and a bloody apple tree.

Answer 1

I guess they could never be 100% sure, but they do have a large fossil record that points in the direction of a beginning that included evolution. Of course they could find something tomorrow that changes everything, proves them 100% right or all wrong, but we can only wait and see and discuss the discoveries that have been made up to this point.

Answer 2

We never said it was the complete answer but its the best thing out there because it is overwhelmingly corroborated..

Possible linkages? No. fossil and DNA evidence pretty much show linkages beyond just "possible". Yeah, there are some gaps, but fossils are hard to make. Lots of stuff gets destroyed in geological and other natural processes. If the fossil record were complete we'd see A LOT more linkages than we already do.

Who said scientists are close minded to other possibilities? Scientists are the most open minded people I know. Scientists are trained to look at the facts. The visual evidence. The measurable. The trackable. The traceable.

Science exist to disprove. Not prove. The scientific method id designed to falsify. Evolution had been tested more time that you can shake a stick at. Falsification has not happened. Refinement of the principles, but no falsification.

Why are you so close minded that you can't think that maybe God/ a god created evolution? He/She/it/they didn't give us these brains so we could blindly follow some book full of dogma.

Answer 3

First, evolution was NOT developed to explain how "we got here". Second, it appears the only other "possibility" is Creationism (aka whatever its proponents wish to call it to make it more scientific). You haven't really made a case for "building one theory on another"; remember that in 1859 nobody knew anything about DNA and very little about fossils.

You are right that no one "knows" how we got here. But that doesn't stop man from asking the question, and looking for a plausible answer. No one ever claimed evolution was obvious. In fact, at the time Darwin published "The Origin of Species", there were other theories to explain species changes. However, they have fallen by the wayside.

You sound like an intellegent person. Take the book out of the library and read it sometimes.

Answer 4

>"Evolution was once supposed to be a placeholder, a theory, until scientists could provide an explanation, and an unequivocal proof of how we got here."

What??? That is not true at all! Science is not, and has never been, in the business of producing "unequivocal proof" of *ANYTHING* ... *EVER*.

>"Why do evolutionists insist that evolution is the obvious answer?"

Three reasons: Evidence, evidence, and evidence.

I don't mean to be snarky, but that's all science is. It is not "unequivocal proof." It is "this is the best theory based on the current evidence." Nothing more, nothing less.

Answer 5

In almost 150 years, no one has brought any evidence against evolution that stood up. And in science, theories are like facts, and they explain. You talk about validating it, but it is just as much validated as the theory or gravity, the theory of atomic structure, and quantum theory. If you have a problem with it, research another possibility and if you find evidence, submit it to a scientific journal.

Answer 6

pass forward and postulate that Birds did not evolve from reptiles inspite of the indisputable fact that the DNA data ought to get in the way, to not point out fossils (oops isn't certainty a *****) exhibiting feathered dinosaurs. to not point out each and every of the fossile birs that have been uncovered. on the grounds that 1990, greater suitable than thrice as many chicken fossils relationship from the Cretaceous have been chanced on than have been got here across in the previous 2 centuries. whilst most of the chicken lineages that arose for the duration of the Cretaceous died out, a number of them survived to gave upward thrust to the excellent variety of birds we see in the present day. yet another minor subject you have gotten is the Therapods. Many features that typify birds have been recent in the theropods before birds progressed, consisting of hollow bones, a wishbone, a backward-pointing pelvis, and a three-toed foot. in direction of theropod evolution, the forelimbs and palms became steadily longer. In some theropods, the bones of the wrist took on a shape that allowed the joint to flex sideways. this would have allowed those animals to whip their long palms forward in a rapid snatching action, in line with danger to seize prey. The wishbone in theropods served to anchor the muscular tissues that pulled the forelimb forward in this grabbing stream -- a action that useful diagnosis shows to be very almost same to the flight stroke of recent birds. Theropods, inspite of the indisputable fact that, in all probability remained many times on the floor. nonetheless stable success, yet bear in innovations purely on the grounds which you "coach" that they did not evolve from reptiles does not advise god did it! Oh and if an evolutioist is somebody that believes in evolution is a creatioist a cretin?

Answer 7

All the evidence says the same thing. The genetic evidence is overwhelming to those who understand the implications of the actual scientific evidence. There is virtually no doubt we have physically evolved from bacteria. It would be unreasonable to assume that we didn't evolve from something much more primitive.

Answer 8

Because there has been no counter-evidence invalidating it. That's what the scientific method is. (for those of you who cite the human eye as counterevidence, search youtube for 'eye evolution').
There is no problem with basing one theory on another.
Would you suggest abandoning all space exploration because einstein's theory of relativity has not been absolutely, undeniably proven?

Answer 9

Because evolution is the most LOGICAL explanation we have right now. I'm sorry, but I don't think that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs coexsisted with man. That's ridiculous.

Answer 10

Because of the evidence.

It's exactly the same, basically, as accepting that the world is round - there is overwhelming evidence.
.