Why do people STILL say evolution is false?

Question

Before anyone says anything about it being "only a theory" read what a scientific theory is here:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_theory.htm

Before you in any way say because it contradicts other laws, if it did that it could not have EVER become a theory.

Before you link any site like answersingenesis.org realize they are neither peer reviewed and they are constantly debuked.

Before you say micro is true and macro isn't you should realize that they are the same mechanism.

Before you say anything else about it being false please explain to me why you believe DNA, Organ donations, flu vaccines, and immunity to hiv.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_05.html

Before you go on about intelligent design, it failed as a hypothesis so that wouldn't apply either.

Jweston2:

That whole mounds of evidence thing.


Wayne T:

That is not what I was talking about but if you wish to learn about things please google "Miller Urey."


Doma:

That is a typical tactic to use in front of a jury. You let the reader draw a conclusion to whatever it is you are implying. The problem is your bark is vastly bigger than your bite. If not, please provide evidence to the contrary. I am betting that you won't be right and you will blather on about something I mentioned in my details.

batgirl2good:

Oh the sheer sheer irony of your hypocrisy. Please, if you are going to block me don't post on my questions. Take your ignorance elsewhere.

Thundercatt:

Read Snout, the guy below you.

Victor:

The Earth is beyond proven it is billions of years old. Sorry, keep your sad propaganda to yourself. "It is best to sit there and have people assume you are ignorant than opening your mouth and proving it."

Jweston2:

Your quote isn't evidence. You simply said it's this way because a book said so and didn't back up your statement with anything.

Besides that, what the hell are you talking about my beliefs are so vague? Evolution, google it. It doesn't require a "belief" only an understanding how it happened.

Teeth have purposes. That is BASIC evolutionary understanding. You should probably at least understand what evolution is BEFORE you make comments on it. Besides that your ignorance of evolution is more prominent in that you argued how it happened is speculation. How evolution occured IS under speculation but NOT that it occured.

Thudercatt:

I again refer you to Snout and a website to actually learn about evolution. Hopefully you will realize how wrong you were.

livescience.com/evolution

Answer 1

Okay thundercatt,

"Microevolution or adaptation [only] uses the genetic variety already in the system of the living organism." This is a common canard of ID advocates but is simply wrong. New genetic variety arises all the time through mutations, transpositions, duplications, etc. ID proponents insist that evolution can only subtract diversity. This is the exact opposite of what the evidence shows.

"... the more time is involved, the more mistakes are made in the passing down of genetic information, resulting in more genetic diseases and problems, rather than improvements" You are missing one of the central mechanisms of evolution - natural selection. While the majority of mutation might be non-adaptive (actually the majority are neutral), natural selection preferentially preserves only the adaptive ones. That's Evolution 101, page 1, top paragraph.

"But fossil evidence of the large transitions between major classes of life required to demonstrate macro-evolution is basically totally absent." The fossil record is of its nature patchy (the probability of fossils of any given historical species are extremely small), but numerous specimens transitional between major modern classes have been found. Here, for example, are some of the transitional forms between fish and amphibians:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

Your Gould quote is a common nugget from the creationist quote mines. Gould is a popular subject for quote mining because his style is to pose a problem and then argue for the solution. If you had read the whole piece you would know that he's arguing for a puntuated equilibrium model of evolution, not against evolution itself. [Quote mining is a way of dishonestly misrepresenting an author's position by extracting a passage from its context. Creationist commonly lie this way, secure in the knowledge their audience will not have read the original piece.]

"... evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors..." Not true. In many cases "new" life forms are quite clearly variations on known earlier forms. If you are arguing for a sequence of special creation you need to explain that resemblance.

ADDITIONAL response to Thundercatt:

Your suggestion that the fossil record should provide exact fine grained detail of every change in every organism over half a billion years (since Cambrian times) is absurd. It is true, however, that the record does not support a completely smooth, even, rate of morphological change for each lineage. But no current evolutionary theorist suggests it should.

Your "half a wing" argument is an old chestnut. A "proto wing" that slows (however slightly) the fall of an arboreal dinosaur is better than nothing. A slightly better wing that allows a little gliding is better. Then one that allows a bit more gliding, then a bit more, then a bit of flapping. You get the picture, I hope. It's not rocket science.

Cataloguing all the proteins of life has barely begun. However, the tiny part of the work that has been done in most cases confirms the evolutionary relationships that were derived from fossil and morphological evidence, with some fine tuning of the tree. Your assertion is without foundation.

Your final statement, that biogenesis is a whole different matter than evolution is quite correct. Biogenesis is still in the realm of speculative hypothesis, unlike our understanding of the basic processes of evolution once simple life developed, which are estabished fact.

Answer 2

The "theory" of evolution [a "scientific theory" must be full of FACTS, not guesses], is corroberated every day by molecular systematics, the fossil record, comparitive morphology, biogeography, and many other disciplines. To claim "proof" all this is false is a remarkable claim indeed, however no "proof" is ever forthcoming, and so always remains a hollow and baseless claim. Only lies, ignorance and denial allow the mainstrean scientific concepts and priciples to be considered false or untrue.. "Jayasri..", are you intentionally misrepresenting the mainstrean scientific standpoint on evolution, or are you just severely mislead and ill informed. NO scientists have "proved" evolution to be false, this can only be considered a lie, period..! Do you choose "alleged" science to discredit science? Therefore why do you choose to ignore "mainstream" science..? There is only "one" kind of true science and the many disciplines all concurr, the others are merely "psuedo science", and are ficticious, taylor made arguments in favour of religious credibility, most of which conflict with each other..!! You have clearly confused the two..!

Answer 3

I can't understand how some people still don't understand the concept. It has been explained time and time again, and genetic sciences have helped humans a lot.

Answer 4

It is easier to believe without questions than it is to actually question. A belief without question makes a person smug. A question without a clear answer makes the same person uncomfortable. "Because the bible told me so" is the usual reply.

Answer 5

You really sound like you arte open minded here! lol Anyways ...

Microevolution or adaptation uses the genetic variety already in the system of the living organism. With macroevolution, since there would be no outside intelligent source for this information, mutation is the only viable method. However, there is no solid body of evidence which indicates that anything of the sort has ever happened --or could happen (with any reasonable probability) using all the time and matter in the present universe. -- This situation is mainly true, because the more time is involved, the more mistakes are made in the passing down of genetic information, resulting in more genetic diseases and problems, rather than improvements.

Since we can't see 'macroevolution', it is at this point that the appeal to the fossil record is then routinely made, --with supposedly impressive lineups of bones which are said to provide evidence of macro-evolutionary progressions down through the millennia. But fossil evidence of the large transitions between major classes of life required to demonstrate macro-evolution is basically totally absent, which is even admitted by some evolutionists, such as the late Stephen J. Gould, who admitted this lack of empirical support for his view, as he stated:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Gould, S.J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?")

Most importantly: The fossil record does not supply any uninterrupted series of transitional forms between phyla or classes or even families of animals or plants ---even though about 90% of the families of all animals are represented in the fossil record! One of the outstanding characteristics of the entire fossil record, is the systematic presence of non-transitioned gaps throughout. Just trees that remain trees, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings. Micro-evolution has not been shown to add up to macro-evolution, no matter in which way or over how long a period the evidence is observed!

Now there is refrencing to DNA ... There is claim that humans and apes share 95 percent of their genetic information and that this is proof of evolution. It is also shown for example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man. This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings being that we are on the same planet. This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.

The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their incredibly complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design."

ADDITION:

A couple of basic points ...

Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny.

Another problem with evolution that continues to worsen is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete. The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one? Other examples abound.

Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it hasn’t.

Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. But of course that is a whole other discussion.

Answer 6

If you want to believe in evolution thats fine, but thats not Bible and that will not get you to Heaven, and how can we know something is a million years old when we don't have the documented proof okay, doesn't it bother you that with all this technology we still can't create something, we can invent, but never create, they say we have about 6000 years of documentation, you would think in at least that amount of time somebody would have learned how to make something out of nothing by now. So go on with your dream, but the Holy Bible says God spoke the world into existance and that is good enough for me. I have felt the Power of the Holy Spirit in my heart and I know its real. I pray you get to feel what I feel, then you will have no doubts, obviously you doubt or you would not be here, Listen to your heart, step out on the porch and look up at the stars, how can you say that just happened. Jesus loves you so much he have his life for you, how many people you know did that for you, think about. Our sins seperate us from God, in order to get to Heaven we need a Saviour, and his name is Jesus Christ, listen to your Heart, Decide for yourself, don;t take someone else's word for it, Read the Bible and listen to the words, Your Spirituality will pick up on what the Bible is saying, read the Gospel of John with an open mind, I know you probably read it before but this time really ask God to just show you if he is real, be sincere, if this comment you posted is sincere then sit down and read the Gospel of John sincerely asking Jesus to reveal himself to you. You will feel something supernatural. God is supernatural, Jesus was born of a virgin, died on a cross and arose the third day, his whole life was supernatural. He is our Saviour, this is a simple sinners prayer, read it and think about it,Dear Jesus, I know and confess that I am sinner in need of salvation. I believe you died on a cross at calvery and arose from the grave to wash away my sins, I ask you right now to come into my heart and save me, I pray this Prayer believing in the name of Jesus Amen. If you prayed this prayer with a sincere heart you are now a child of God, rejoice that your name is written in the Lambs book of Life. Jesus will now send his Holy Spirit to come and live in your heart and guide you into all truth. If you have any questions just send me an email, God Bless YOU!!

Answer 7

It's called fear and denial, being led by the corrupt who love controlling people.

Answer 8

the universe was here long before man ; man wants to believe that we have everything figured out and then a new discovery etc etc

Answer 9

Sounds like you made up yur mind, therefore I won't give you the evidence I have already posted here.

Answer 10

Why did anyone EVER say evolution was true?

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:16-17)

Re: How logical, discount my evidence and treasure your own. I specifically quoted that verse as evidence that death did not exist prior to man, but was initiated in the Garden of Eden, as testified by the Hebrew Masoretic scriptures for over three thousand years. Before this, God had made a perfect world: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Gen 1:31) There was no death, no unclean corpses lying about, and no reason to take away that which was given. But when Adam decided to take action against God's command, death was the judgment set forth upon him, along with all those under his control.

As for your so-called evidences for your belief system, they are so vague that it is difficult to respond to them. Please narrrow your question to particular examples that you wish proved, and then argue them. Otherwise you are wasting your time with generalizations that you hope are true.

Re to Snout: Your rebuttal is amazingly speculative. The idea of natural selection actually holds a major flaw, and that is that the reason for the code behind the decision making is undefined. Why for example should the universe favor animals with sharp teeth over those with no teeth? This is a question that will ultimately lead you to admit a cause for such universal rules of nature, and thus God's existence even in your faulty assumptions. Thus, it is God who we ought to seek for answers, which is the exact purpose of Genesis. As for the "so-called" transitionals, you are going to have a hard time proving that they are not men with "mutated" skulls or primates from time past. But I'm sure you'll fill in the gaps with your imagination.