You people should look up "cage experiment" on google. Basically a cage experiment is were you put a bunch of plants and animals into a room, and then you slightly change the conditions of the environment in the room from the normal conditions on Earth, and just let them go and see what happens. Well what happens is that the plants and animals change form in a way that increases their chances of surviving in the new environment that we have put them in. We have literally observed plants and animals change and adapt to their environments rights in front of our eyes. I don't know what else scientists could possible do to convince you people that evolution is right.
2007-07-24 09:37:46 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Wow, I cannot imagine how the churches so succesfully brainwashed you people. They sure did a good job though.
2007-07-24 09:45:27 · update #1
uhhhh yes, every adaption is evolution.
2007-07-24 09:51:05 · update #2
and here come the Oh well micro-evolution is ok but not macro-evolution excuses.
2007-07-24 09:40:46 · answer #1 · answered by John C 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Two comments:
1. i don't have any problems with your claim but I do when they take experiments such as your example and claim thus it is possible for bacteria to evolve into humans. (you see both bacteria and humans can survive in similar environments - in fact bacteria should do better). There is no proof that one species could jump over to another.
2. evolution is an expression of a pattern within a created environment and not an expression of creation in itself. don't be misunderstood the theory of evolution does NOT explain how this universe came to be.
2007-07-24 17:02:51 · answer #2 · answered by NYBHC 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I appreciate the point of your question. But for many, they want to see a species change into another species to be convinced. I think we can appreciate their point. We have never actualy seen that happen. There are arguments that hold that you cannot get to point A from B through many successive little changes without having some knowledge of where you were going. That is to go from a blob of goo to a tiger for example. They make a good point. Unfortunately, it would take too long to prove it out.
2007-07-24 16:42:56 · answer #3 · answered by brando4755 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have heard of the cage experiment and it only proves microevolution. If you take a DNA sample of the plants and animals before the experiemtn and again after the experiment, they would be essentially the same. They have not changed into different species. That would be macroevolution and it remains unproven.
2007-07-24 16:48:58 · answer #4 · answered by Tim 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Natural selection, adpation, pretty much happens. That's nature's way of survival. Do you think God was so negligent in his plan that he wouldn't make a plan in the genetics of life not to adapt to the many changes the Earth would go through? what's your point?
2007-07-24 16:57:15 · answer #5 · answered by patriotgains 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They have a magical mechanism called ignorance that keeps small changes from adding up to large changes. They agree that you can nail a board to another board, but they don't understand that if you do this enough time you can build a house. They don't understand evolution so they use words like "micro evolution". Even things like Ring Species that have been observed to show "macro evolution" don't penetrate their minds.
2007-07-24 16:46:48 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No amount of proof, no amount of reasoning will cut any ice with the fanatics. They really think that evolution means a horse giving birth to a cat. A miracle of disinformation and mind-control.
2007-07-24 16:59:40 · answer #7 · answered by The Singing President 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
here's some more evidence:
the gene that determines whether our blood type is positive or negative is called the rhesus factor. it was named the rhesus factor because the same gene is found in monkeys.
polar bears originally weren't white. but they turned white over a LONG period of time in order to blend in with the snow and so now it's easier for them to get food.
2007-07-24 16:45:12 · answer #8 · answered by Sam 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Problem: The rose remains a rose. It has adopted to the new environment, but it is still a rose.
The berry remains a berry. Again, it has adopted to the new environment, but it has not quit being a berry. Maybe it is now inedible, but it is basically the same.
The dog remains a dog, the cat remains a cat. If you add radiation, the dog becomes begets dogs that are deformed, but they are still dogs. The cats beget cats that are deformed, but they are still cats.
And whatever other plant or animal is used in the experiment, it remains the same plant or animal. A rose does not suddenly become a chrysanthumum, a cat doesn't suddenly become a dog. Nor do plants become animals or animals become plants. Do a little DNA testing.
This is not evidence of evolution, but rather adoptation or DE-evolution, as animals become deformed or LESS than what they were originally.
Keep trying.
2007-07-24 16:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by no1home2day 7 · 0⤊ 7⤋
If that were enough, I can tell you that evolution surely wouldn't be call theory.
But it is not enough.
I got a question for you... is every adaptation evolution?
Take care.
---------------------------------------------
Not really...if you had an accident and you can´t walk anymore..do you adapt to the situation o evolutionate to that? (sorry if I wrote the evolution thing wrong)
What makes one thing evolution and other adaptation? You can adapt without any biological change, right?
2007-07-24 16:47:40 · answer #10 · answered by Yanya Yanyitus de Yanhoos 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋