What part of the Evolutionary Theory is lacking in evidence?

Question

I think it seems to make good sense to me, but others say that it's lacking in evidence.

So for those who don't believe in it (even though it's a scientific fact), where are you lacking this evidence?

I asked this in the Biology category and I got even dumber answers, i.e 'God told me so, so I believe him' and 'The part where my Grandfather is ment to be an ape' and 'There is no evidence to support that it did exist'

Answer 1

Good luck finding an evolution critic who can even define the term... many of the people who hate it so much don't even know what it is...

Answer 2

You can't believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory not a belief. There are several theories on how organic matter came from inorganic matter. There are several theories on how protein came to be and how the first outer membranes came to me. The theory of evolution is great so far, but it still branches off into several undecided possible theories. Science should be able to tell you which theory is more plausible in the formation of protein and the outer membrane. All the theories can't be right, one must hold true over the others. So which one is it? Maybe one day science will be able to tell us.

However what does this have to do with my CHOICE to believe in God and faith?

Answer 3

evlution has been proven false (is only a theory).
Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process.
EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

We dont have ALL the evidence to subtatiate the theory of evolution. However we do have SOME evidence.Creationists base their "theorys" on a book written 2000 years ago when science was seen as witchcraft...

Answer 4

I haven't done much research on it, but be careful of what you say: it's not a scientific fact. It's a theory - there's a significant difference between the two. Really, there is no concrete proof - just logical conclusions, based on related evidence. But there is no hard evidence that ties everything together. I personally don't care whether it's true or not, though I find that people to both extremes (bible bangers who say it's all a lie and super athiests who say it's infallible) tend to really piss me off. I believe in evolution, though the lack of concrete proof prevents me from believing in all of it. Really, people to either extremes are completely biased and have no proof, so they're just ranting. Just be careful - it's not a scientific fact (or else it would be called the Evolution Law). There's a huge difference between theory and law.

One thing that gets me is that you all are very quick to criticize the bible bangers who say its not true but I don't see anyone criticizing the super athiests who think every word darwin says is law. and many people giving proof of what is missing (such as the bird wing, etc) are given thumbs down. Seems people here don't want to hear of any flaws in the evolution THEORY. Evolution itself can be assumed to be true - species DO evolve, its proven. The theory of species evolving over millions of years, why it is LOGICAL, lacks proof in a few places (bird wing, missing link, there isn't proof on how a complex eye developed). Read up on it - there are a few holes. But people will jump all over the bible bangers (who do piss me off) but give thumbs up to the people who put all of their faith in science. Science and religion can work together - they use different methods of reason. Science uses evidence and physics, biology, etc to prove its theories. Religion uses philosophy. You can't prove religion through evidence, just as you can't prove science through philosophy. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

Answer 5

@Believer:Did your instructor clarify how asserting 'actuality'oids fairly than explaining is a foul thank you to place your element in the time of? Did your instructor clarify that each and every physique fossils are transitional fossils? Did your instructor provide help to touch different books? There are greater effective than one drawing, and specific even different pictures. Did your instructor inform you lies? DNA could be gained to boot as lost. Did your instructor clarify how organic decision is particularly taking place and contradicts no longer something in nature (and is illogical to assert it can not take place)? Did your instructor clarify evolution like Mr Garrison does? P.S. Sorry, I only get aggravated on each and every occasion somebody says or means that the transitional fossils are diverse from different fossils then proceed to apply the word fossil to 'practice' different factors.

Answer 6

So for those who don't believe in it (even though it's a scientific fact), where are you lacking this evidence?

Then you should have no problem posting a link that shows one species evolving into a new life form. Not talking about changes WITHIN A SPECIES as in tall, fat, short, skiny, etc. Show me in the fossil record, (since it's a scientific fact) the chage from one to another. I mean think about it, with the billions and billions of species, evolving all the time, there most be trillions of fossils that show this. My email is open, so fell free to start shooting those links through at anytime. btw(you do know that every fossil record ever found thus far, showes each species fully deveoped don't you?)

Answer 7

The only part of the theory that really needs much further research is the forming of task specific organs.

I am not a creationist but we seriously have very little information regarding the development of individual task specific organs.

Answer 8

Yo, Wayne, do you really expect US to believe that some magic, invisible guy in the sky created everything from scratch and is responsible for everything ever created?

To answer the question, I'm sure it's lacking in evidence in plenty of places, but either way it's the only decent explanation provided, so perhaps you should ask people for evidence AGAINST it.

Answer 9

Most creationists ask where the complete fossil records are,but at the same time say Satan has put them there anyway.Fossils by their very nature are rare anyway and need particular conditions to form,so to expect every stage of evolution to have one is ridiculous.But then some people thrive on the ridiculous.

Answer 10

To ask where it lacks evidence is a clever creationist tactic. One of their claims is that there are many holes in the fossil record. Of course this is true, but it is irrelevant. There is a consistent enough record to show that evolution occurs, and there are in fact complete fossil records of some species (the horse, for example).

Answer 11

that a god excists
honetly I can't because how bad the evidence is

I know for sure being told by a book doesn't make me believe
even though I try

people also said that about some ratwoman doing magic in books to back in those days to