English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Someone asked that with their mind made up and chose the best answer that had 13 thumbs down

I though this was a forum for exchanging ideas not to hold onto ur own no matter what

Thanks for keeping ur minds open


1. Many more individuals are born than can possibly survive, thus there is competition for limited resources

2. Within this vast number there is variation, and because of this variation some of these individuals will have an advantage--however slight--over others

3. The ones who have the advantages are more competitive and thus they are more likely to obtain the limited resources

4. The ones who are succeeding in securing the limited resources are more likely to reproduce and thus pass onto their offspring the more competitive traits

Darwin

2007-09-12 03:10:55 · 29 answers · asked by Man of Ideas 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

29 answers

Evolution is real, and observed. There is more evidence for evolution than any other scientific theory.

2007-09-12 03:17:49 · answer #1 · answered by novangelis 7 · 6 1

Yes. Anyone may observe it occuring and should necessarily be convinced that what was seen fits the definition.

In biology, the definition of evolution is "Change in a population's collective genome over time."

In simplest terms, this occurs whenever organisms in a population reproduce. This occurs whenever an organism dies. The population's genome changes.

I would like to ask someone who does not agree to demonstrate how these events do not fit the definition, or alternately to demonstrate that these events do not occur.

2007-09-12 10:47:06 · answer #2 · answered by coralsnayk 3 · 0 1

That "best answer" now has 14 thumbs-downs.
You're right - that question got numerous perfectly good answers explaining the phenomenon the girl asked about - yet she chose as "best answer" one from a creationist claiming that everyone had simply insulted the asker and not answered the question. In other words, the "best answer" was a demonstrable lie. That defeats the intended purpose of Yahoo!Answers, not that it has served that purpose in R&S anytime in the last several months at least.

2007-09-12 10:21:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

Evolution is a theory.
God would not even qualify as a hypothesis.

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories."

2007-09-12 10:17:48 · answer #4 · answered by qxzqxzqxz 7 · 5 3

Darwin's theory of evolution was based on faulty science.

He thought that the cell was the smallest divisible part of a living body.

He believed (contrary to facts that wasn't available in his lifetime) that the contents of the living cell was a fluid he referred to as "ambiotic fluid".

He believed that the cell within the mother's womb was "undesignated", and as such, could be reformulated because of external stimuli and environmental pressures.

He drew a logical conclusion based on a faulty premise, and if you know ANY thing about logic, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion will also be wrong.

The truth about a living cell? Glad you asked.

The cell can be broken down into yet smaller components, the nucleus, the mitochondria, proteins, DNA, RNA, and other stuff, as well.

Study how the mitochondria converts raw materials into usable energy within the cell. It would never fly in the face of evolution, because the very first step involves LOSING a unit or 2 of energy. The total gain is 5 or 7, but it has to first lose 3 or 4 units of energy in the process.

Study how the cell multiplies. The double-strand of DNA in a helixical shape uncoils itself, splits into 2 separate strands, creates a mirror image of itself called the RNA (Ribonuclaic Acid), recombines with the other DNA strand, then coils itself back up into a helix!

The strands of RNA, in the meantime, goes on to create 2 more strands of DNA by producing yet another mirror image of itself. These two strands of DNA, then combine and coil themselves up into the helix again.

Besides cell division, the RNA is also used to create proteins, control body growth and formation, and even the color of the eyes, ultimate IQ, etc, etc, etc.

This "stuff" that Darwin knew nothing about makes the Cray Supercomputer look like a toy.

We are not naive enough to believe that the Cray was the result of an accidental explosion in a warehouse full of all kinds of raw materials, and yet people are still naive to think that the cell, which is VASTLY more complex than the Cray, was the result of an accident.

Oh, not an accident? Then it was deliberate - requiring planning, thinking, and intelligence.

Go out and buy a Cray Supercomputer - naw - go out and buy a simple Timex mechanical watch. Take that watch completely apart, screws, spring, gears, the works. Don't lose any of the parts. Put them all into a baggie and seal the baggie. Put the baggie in your clothes dryer and turn the dryer on. Let it run for 2 or 3 months and then pull out the baggie. Open the baggie, and pull out the Timex watch, still ticking! If I told you that I watched a watch "evolve" over time as some big rigs collided, and parts from each rig fell to the ground, and the chemicals from one rig began working away at the metals from the other rig, and over a period of time, this complete watch formed, what would you think about me?

Well, since a watch is nothing compared to the living cell, I think that same thing about evolutionists a thousand times - no make that a billion times - more so!

Evolution - totally nonsense. You really have to lay aside your intelligence to believe it, contrary to all the scientific facts. That is one great faith they have there! Truly, a blind leap of faith!

Now, go and do that experiment with the watch, and draw your OWN conclusions. Don't just take my word for it, and don't assume I'm wrong until you've tried it for yourself! Go study microbiology and cellular chemistry. Don't just believe everything everybody tells you! ("The blind leading the blind, and they both fall into the ditch")

Additional comment:

Thank you for the "thumbs down" - it only proves my point that people blindly accept the rediculous without investigating the facts. In the words of Albert Einstein, "The universe is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. There are many possible solutions, but only One fits ALL the facts."

2007-09-12 10:30:15 · answer #5 · answered by no1home2day 7 · 0 5

There is far to much evidence of evolution NOT to believe , unless you have a particular mindset that precludes logic.
I never could see what evolution has to do with belief in The
Creator.
G-d is not a magician or a puppeteer.
Personally , I believe that mankind was created in the image of G-d the day He blew His Spirit into us.
We have a choice to believe or not to believe -like I said G-d is not our puppeteer.

2007-09-12 10:23:42 · answer #6 · answered by Bemo 5 · 0 3

Evolution is a theory
God is a myth
Stupidity is majority
Majority is tyrannical in nature
Stupidity likes myth
Myth wins
Reality is what the majority believes
Thus your evolution is not real,truth maybe,real NOT

2007-09-12 10:23:38 · answer #7 · answered by Drakulaz 4 · 2 1

Most of the time, people pick answers that they agree with, rather than well thought out answers. Hell, 80% of the time they just pick whoever posted first.

2007-09-12 10:21:23 · answer #8 · answered by wondermus 5 · 2 0

This is all too often a forum for declaring one's view of the absolute truth. Largely American, it is more geared toward talking than listening, and thinking is right out.

2007-09-12 10:16:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of Evolution is observable. Every time you use antibiotics proves this fact. The theory of Evolution describes this mechanism.

2007-09-12 10:21:49 · answer #10 · answered by fredanderssen 2 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers