Do You Believe that Evolution is True?

Question

(a)some people argues that evolution is sustained more by blind faith than by science.
(b) There is no explanation of how life got started; (c) The fossil record has NO transitional forms ("missing link") from one species to another.

Answer 1

Wow! The responses are amazing on both sides.
A). I would like to see tighter controls on these evolutionary experiments and I doubt the honesty of some of the researchers they could be part of a hoax. If evolution is true why hasn't it been demonstrated (for humans) in front of qualified people like James Randi that is an expert on how people deceive themselves and others? Perhaps it's not blind faith instead of science but blind faith in science that is the problem.
B). That is correct there is no explanation of how life came to be nor is there is any testable hypothesis for the evolution of humans. Until evolution has an established and falsifiable theory it should not be accepted as science despite all evidence and observations that may support it's existence.
C). Fossil records can be dismissed due to poor dating practices and contamination of the fossils or fabricated evidence. While it is true that many other species have fossil records showing transitions from one form to the other this is equal to anecdotal accounts there is no evidence that this applies to human beings.

;)

Answer 2

Evolution is not only true it is inevitable. Organisms are different from each other, the differences are inherited, some survive better than others. Evolution MUST occur, and over billions of years the changes will be huge.

The idea that there are no missing link fossils is ridiculous. There are hundreds of examples. Whenever an intermediate fossil is discovered, anti-evolutionists say it is a new species and that now you have 2 missing intermediate species. How logical is that??

Life got started once over 3 billion years ago. That is a big mystery, though there are some interesting ideas. Evolution has been occurring ever since and is a different question from the origin of life.

Do you believe that in 9 months a tiny single cell can turn into a baby human with brain, heart and all the other complexities? I find that a lot harder to understand than that species can gradually change over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

Answer 3

a- evolution's theory started from observation. That is pretty far removed from "blind faith". And the theory has been tweaked as more information was uncovered. That is NOT "blind" faith.
b- So? Evolution is not about how it got started, but how, once it got started, there was nothing to stop it from turning into all the known species. How life started is another field, check out abiogenesis.
c- it has been shown, though simulation (see link) that an improvement in a biological organism will spread out so quickly and so overwhelmingly that transitional creatures would just be there for a couple of generation, and thus very unlikely to leave a fossil record. Do you know how many T-Rex skeletons were ever discovered? About 30. None of them 100% complete. And that is a big animal that existed for million of years.

Answer 4

Evolution *is* true, whether I believe it or not.

Some people do argue that belief in evolution is based on faith. Those people (whose faith sustains their own belief system) do not understand evolution. They for the most part make no attempt to learn the mechanism. Depending on the person, their perception of evolution can be simple puzzlement to outright hostility. The one common element among all evolution deniers is the true misunderstanding of the concept and of science in general (i.e. "If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?", "Evolution is just a theory.") I read some painfully embarrassing answers to this question. They were all posted by admitted Christians and they all--without exception--displayed a complete and willfull ignorance of the subject.

Evolution makes no claims about how life started. You can deduce quite a bit though. For example, if the incredibly complex organisms (i.e. humans) evolved from less complex organisms, then would it be unreasonable to assume that this could be reduced all the way back to the least complex organism?

The fossil record is not complete. We do not have a fossil for every single creature that ever existed. However, your statement that there are no transitional fossils is patently false. There are hundreds of examples of transitional fossils.

Ultimately it boils down to whether you base your concept of the world on what you see (i.e. what is observable) or what you are told (i.e. what's in the bible). Which version do you suppose would hold up in a court of law, or any other place where decisions are based on evidence?

Answer 5

The term evolution is misunderstood by many people, especially those who say that "man didn't come from apes". Evolution never states that man came from apes. Darwin's theories state that Humans and Apes had a common ancestor, but I am getting ahead of myself.

There are 2 parts to Darwin's theory.
The first is related to small, random, inheritable differences within individuals that result in a different chance for survival. This has been observed, tested, and demonstrated. I don't know of any religious organization that takes issue with this concept of evolution.

The second part of Darwin's theory says that genetic changes sometimes accumulate within an isolated segment of a species as that isolated population adapts to the local conditions. At a certain point, that subgroup becomes irreversibly distinct from the rest of the species such that it cannot interbreed with the original species.

This second one precipitates the "man doesn't come from apes" argument and is the part of the theory that is incompatible with the idea that all species on the planet were created 5,000 years ago, and no changes have occurred since that time. The evidence for the second part is mostly circumstantial, but scientifically convincing. Here's a little summary:

Evidence 1: "Closely Allied" species inhabit neighboring patches of habitat. For example, several species of zebra live in Africa, but none in the Americas though the habitat could easily support zebras. Similar species occur in nearby space because they have decended form common ancestors.

Evidence 2: Paleontological evidence (studying ancient bones) reveal extinct species that appear to be "missing links". A whale-like skeleton of a creature called a "dorudon" has been found with detached hips, tiny, useless legs, and human-like hand bones attached to front fins. This is just one of dozens of "missing links" that have been found.

Evidence 3: Vistigial physical characteristics are apparent in current species. Human males have nipples that serve no purpose. Some snakes, notably boas, have rudimentry pelvises and the remnants of tiny legs. Some flightless beetles have wings that never open. These are signs of physical characteristics which come from common ancestors, but which are no longer needed by the current species.

Darwin and evolutionary theory doesn't pertain to any discussion about the origins of life, just the origins of species. I want to be clear that none of the evidence denies the existence of a divine creator.

Finally, I want to be clear that the term "Theory of Evolution" does not mean that there isn't any proof for Evolution. It is scientific terminology similar to the "Theory of Gravity" or "Number Theory", both of which are widely accepted as truths although there really isn't any way to definitively prove gravity or the infinity of the number line except by observation and logical reasoning. Nobody can hold gravity or a number in a box just as nobody can hold Evolution in a box. Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence to support evolution. Thanks for the question!

Answer 6

Wow, the fundies have arrived. I gave up arguing with them a long time ago, because no matter how much evidence you present, they simply ignore it. But I will make an exception in this case.

To answer both parts at the same time:

The evidence for evolution is provided by the fossil record, which shows many transitional forms. Each transitional form is by definition a new species in it's own right. As for the origins of life, evolution makes no claims whatsoever about how life began, but only about how life developed once it started.

Now, when are you going to come up with some good evidence for any alternative, except the standard phrase "goddidit".

Answer 7

There are several theories of how life got started.Evolution doesn't deal with that,evolution deals with how there came to be such a diversity of species.The relevant field of "how life got started"is ABIOGENESIS,google it.There you will find the current theories.Every fossil is a "transitional"fossil.That statement is a complete,utter falsehood perpetuated by creationist websites.We have a quite thorough fossil record,with intermediate species galore.This is one of the worst lies propagated by creationists,it is completely,absolutely baseless,and a purposeful lie,relying on the fact that most won't bother to check the truth of the claim,when it is instantly shown without ant doubt at all,that we literally have tons of "transitional"fossils.Genetic evidence is even more compelling than the fossil record.The same branch of science everyone relies on to establish paternity,to convict or aquit criminals,the same science that is the very basis of modern medicine,shows without a doubt we are related to primates,and all other life to some degree.It is not "blind faith"It is the OPENING of your eyes to see the overwhelming mass of evidence for evolution,and the fact there has been zero,that's right,zero evidence,EVER,to disprove it.The half man/half ape is a typical creationist response.One that,if thought through,works against creationism,not for it.If an ape were to give birth to a half ape/half man as creationists often ask.The Theory of Evolution would be DISPROVEN.Half/half creatures should be seen if the creationist version is true,which states all the millions of species of life "micro-evolved"(whatever that means,they don't know either,they read it on websites and it sounds smart)from the "KINDS"of animals on the Ark,in only a few thousand years.For that rate of change to happen,we should be seeing half/half creatures all the time.We don't,therefore,the ARk story is bogus,for the very reason uninformed creationists try to disprove TOE.TOE is much slower and subtler than that,and makes no such claim of half/half creatures.It takes the short time scale of the flood to make the appearance of half/half creatures necessary.Evolution is fact.If you wish to believe in god,would not your god be a god of truth?Evolution happened,follow the truth,at the end of the truth,if there is a god,there you will find him.Not in a 2000 year old heavily edited and censored book of tall tales written by goatherders.Evolution is not under debate.Those rabid literalists,to whom the book being right is more important than the actual truth,scream loud to give the impression there is dispute.There isn't.TOE is accepted worldwide,even by most churches.Don't let the brainwashed getyou to ignore the evidence right in front of your face.If there is a god,and he is truth,I'm sure he'll appreciate you learning it

Answer 8

the fossil record has nothing but transitional forms since all forms of life are transitional.
evolution is not a faith, it is an observation.
evolution and how life started are separate issues.
like all animals people evolve in a direction that makes them more suited to reproduction. in developed countries, this is often based on how attractive they are. consequently humans are evolving into a more attractive species. just look at your parents or grand parents school pictures if you dont believe me. you will observe that we are evolving quite rapidly.

Answer 9

The concept, or theory, of Evolution originated in the works of Charles Darwin and challenged the long held Christian belief in Creation as recounted in the Old Testament. For some time the controversy raged between the two diametrically opposed views among scholars. As far as I remember from the newspapers I read years back, no less than the late Pope John Paul II, in light of advanced scientific evidence or perhaps striking a middle ground between the opposing views, virtually acknowledged that Evolution did happen.

Answer 10

(a) they are wrong
(b) abiogenesis, not part of evolution. Has been re-created in lab experiments
(c) Every fossil is a transitional fossil. the term "missing link" is a wrong term coined by creationists. There have been hundreds of fossils found which represent the many species between us and our ancestors.