Like when life just started to be, there are two domains that were there from the begining th Bacteria and Archaea, which consist of various kinds of cells. Also, the third domain Eukarya, with cells which have a nucleus, and from which humans started evolving.
However, all of it is mostly assumed to be. Even thought there is "some" evidence of "animal fossils" and other factors etc.
I dont deny the evidence, but it still doesnt lead me to believe in evolution.
There is not enouth evidence to prove that evolution is true...
2007-10-17 07:30:56 · 12 answers · asked by Life@ 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There is more evidence that it is true then there is evidence that Adam and Eve magically appeared one day in some garden and then, through them, the human race began.
2007-10-17 07:36:10 · answer #1 · answered by Demopublican 6 · 10⤊ 0⤋
There weren't 3 domains when life started. Logically there could only be a single species. Some crude type of bacterium or more likely a kind of semi-self reliant viroid structure, by which I mean a replicating bit of rna with a protein coat, not an actual parasite.
There are mountains and mountains of evidence to prove evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution.
'Lead me to believe in evolution'
You think its about faith? That's why you'll NEVER grasp the truth - science will never tell you 'because we said so', never asks you to take it on faith. It says here is our data, here is how we obtained it, feel free to check our results, do the tests yourself.
This isn't even a question, is it? What's sad is that you actually believe you know something about evolution. You don't even know what it IS.
2007-10-17 14:36:54 · answer #2 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
So because one part of evolution doesn't have all the evidence you want, you discredit the whole theory? What about the evidence that humans share a common ancestor to apes? There is so much evidence for that, it is idiotic to think it doesn't have enough for a logical person to accept it. It would be logical for you to accept evolution, but say that certain parts of it don't have enough evidence for you accept the whole thing. And in reality, this is why science is constantly looking for more answers and refine their theories.
2007-10-17 15:11:08 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right, but people that get paid to investigate, evaluate and discredit scientific theories find that it has more evidence that that supporting gravity. I've examined a small portion of the total amount of evidence and I'm convinced, especially as there are no competing theories. "Assumed" is often a word that is used for further research is needed.
Edit: added several links for you to review.
2007-10-17 14:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is more evidence supporting evolution then all but maybe 5 other theories in all of science. More than for the theory of gravity, 4 times more than the evidence supporting modern medicine. It is not something to believe, it is scientific fact.
2007-10-17 14:36:16 · answer #5 · answered by neil s 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
I've taken a few college courses in evolution and the evidence is overwhelming. If you get all the information from some good sources it will become very difficult not to believe. It becomes very obvious.
2007-10-17 14:36:34 · answer #6 · answered by Mal 5 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Leviathan and Jolly Roger gave you the tools to educate yourself.
Questions like this bring to mind the medieval church condemning astronomers for saying the earth revolved around the sun in contradiction to the Bible.
This wasn't a question anyway and it is in the wrong section, to boot.
2007-10-17 15:04:31 · answer #7 · answered by 454ramair 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
if evolution doesn't happen,why are there different animals on each continent or island
they would all be the same on every continent or island
each species adapted to there surroundings on each of the continents or islands,this is evolution
2007-10-17 14:45:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it is not 'assumed'.
I think you haven't studied really the evidence you claim 'not to deny'.
2007-10-17 14:53:17 · answer #9 · answered by Bajingo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And your superior alternative theory with MORE evidence is what, exactly?
I'm sure scientists would love to hear it. You should write your dissertation on it.
Just because you can't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.
2007-10-17 14:34:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 0⤋