How robust is the theory of evolution?

Question

What is the best evidence for evolution and what are the problems with the theory?

Answer 1

Evolution is easily refuted.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/

You ask the wrong question about the evidence. We all have exactly the same evidence. It's just the evolutionists and creationists interpret it in a different way.

For example the fossils. Evolutionists interpret them as evidence of great age, assuming the rocks were laid down slowly.
Creationists interpret them as evidence of the Global Flook which laid down the sediment very rapidly.

Which fits the evidence better? Well how do you form a fossil - certainly not by burying a creature slowly. Dead things get eaten, not buried. The fact that the whole world is covered by sedimentary rock laid down by water, containing billions of dead things, is what one would expect from the Flood. It is not what one would expect from the evolutionary scenario.

Further the fossils do not show gradual change in plants and animals. They show stasis and extinction. Fossilised animals look the same as creatures now. This is *not* what evolution predicts.

There are many many examples of evolution abjectly failing to explain the evidence. Check the link above.

And don't be fooled by evolutionists peddling their philosophy as science. Demand to see their evidence - and check their assumptions!

Answer 2

Infinitely more robust than any alternative so-called "theory".

There is way too much "best evidence" to even try to list on this kind of forum. If you are really interested, get a good book, like "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

And, Apple is wrong. Just because he/she can't understand how evolution could happen, doesn't mean it didn't.

Answer 3

the evidence for evolution is overwelming...

it answers EVERY question raised by the evidence

there are many creationist websites that provide so called "scientific" information on problems with evolution

these are developed by people with hidden agendas, who feel the science is the cause of all the imoral parts of moden life.

they try to confuse an issue that is very simple if you study it.

ie. buy spouting the old "transitional forms" rubbish; look at humans, ALL are individual... no two are the same (exsept identical twins of course) so we are ALL "transitional forms"

genetics combined with evolutionary biology, and palaeontology. have over 200 years of evidence... and its only increaseing

do be carefull where you surf, some websites are only put there to confuse you

FAITH and SCIENCE should be kept apart!

Answer 4

It isn't at all, because The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J0JNU

That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html


Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Answer 5

As Kemodo said above, the information you want is way too long to put here. It would pretty much fill a book. You can get a general overview on line, as long as you make sure it's a scientific site, not a "debunking" site. There really aren't a lot of problems except for people who just don't want to believe it.

And Mit, I'll take just one of your points and tell you that evolution doesn't say horses developed longer legs to run faster, they developed longer legs because those who had longer legs were able to get to food better and escape predators better so their genetic line was continued and those who didn't have that advantage died out. You're talking Lamarckism, not evolution!

Answer 6

There is significant support for micro-evolution -- slight changes and adaptation of species to their environment. Just looking at the human race, you can see that African peoples have characteristics that tend to be helpful in that environment. Dark skin to fight sun exposure, flatter noses, where northern peoples have longer noses (helps pre heat incoming air) etc.

Macro-evolution (change between species) is a much less supported theory. There are no real transitional species you can point to. A prime example of macroevolution problems is the bat. The wing and poor eyesight are both characteristics that would not lend to gradual development, because the steps to get from walking mammal to poor sighted flying mammal would be weeded out by a darwinist theory and never fully eveolved.

Answer 7

:
There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

The theory of evolution would have us believe that some long past creature developed wings so it could fly, escape enemies, and capture food. That horses developed long legs so they could run fast, and graze. That lizards lost their legs and became snakes so as to move faster in certain terrains. Or that wasps developed stingers to protect them from enemies. The list could go on and on. What underlying force or intelligence explains this? How would a wingless bird know how to grow wings? How would a short-legged horse know to grow larger legs to enable better mobility? How would any species "know" how to perfectly mutate the exact addition or alteration in body form which would give it the new capability? The staunch "scientific" view states that all genetic mutations were accidental, minor, and occurring over very long periods of time, and that things such as physical organs, entire bodily systems (circulation, nervous, etc.) and organic mechanisms (i.e. bee stingers, bat's sonar, human eye, etc.) developed as the result of extremely long series of genetic accidents (i.e. mutations) - one after another in an endless sequence of convenient mistakes. I find this more absurd than any notion that some external force created the various species and simply placed them here - whether that external entity be God, earlier advanced human civilizations with genetic capability, or some well advanced alien race.
Where are all the missing links? The stages of evolution such as from a bird without wings to a bird with wings? Where is the bird with a small stub of a wing? Or a half-developed wing? They don’t exist. This is true for every species and sub-species. The absence of these life forms puts the entire theory into severe question. So how can the ideas be accurate? They can’t. This isn’t an argument for Creationism. I have no proof for that either. But let’s be honest. There is no proof for either. In the end it’s a matter of personal belief and opinion. But the modern scientist too often demands his views as legitimate and valid, just as did any Priest of the Spanish Inquisition demanded his views as being legitimate and valid - much to the distress of any poor soul who chose to disagree. They both enforce their views on everyone else with a passion. In the end the Darwinist or materialist believes and states that the evidence of the missing links will eventually be found. Their total acceptance and belief in the theory makes that a logical necessity. Their unwavering belief in the theory of evolution is as absurd as any religious belief in God. There is absolutely no evidence yet they both believe anyway.

Micro evolution or macro evolution
Darwin did not really address the issue of the creation of the first life; the assumption that it was spontaneously created by chance was added by later followers of him. His theory mainly involved the changes between species. The idea is that sometimes, by chance, certain animals are born with different features from their parents. In some cases, these features give the animals which have them a better chance of survival and thus getting children, so the animals with the better features survive and hence the type of animal is changed somewhat

The big gaps I: changes between species
If a species is changed to another species gradually, with several steps, then many forms between these two species should have existed At the time Darwin stated his theory, research of fossils was not as far evolved as it was now. At that time, he assumed that the fossils in the earth would later give further proof for his theory. Namely, he expected that these in-between forms would appear as fossils. However, the current palonteologic research has not shown that these in-between forms exist. Many people know the missing link, which is the unavailability of an animal form just before the human, but similar missing links exists at many, many other spots.
The big gaps II: the creation of complicated body parts
Evolution theory tells us how small changes can be made, but a DNA change that makes a spontaneous creation of something as complicated as an eye or ear is too unlikely to assume. Thus, when following evolution theory, we could assume that complicated body parts like eyes, ears, livers, etc. etc. etc. were gradually formed, with small changes between different species. However, it is not clear what is the use of some part of a body that is a start of an ear, but which cannot hear. Most of these body parts are only useful if they can perform their function, perhaps not yet optimally, but at least a little. But this contradicts evolution theory: a not functional body part would just be something bad for the animal, and thus the animal with the not yet finished ear would have a smaller chance of survival, and thus not enough chance of getting children. And hence, no animals with a slightly further developped ear, etc.

Answer 8

There are no problems,,,just look at the fossil and geological evidence,,,

Answer 9

I think the biggest fault of the theory is that, statistically, it's ridiculous, to speculate that we started as tiny cells and sortof worked our way up to infinitely-complex organisms. I can't observe the world around me and see how it could have reached its current state via evolution.

Another thing I've been wondering is, if evolution happened, why did we sortof degrade as humans to having children that can not survive independently after birth, but other species below us have offspring that are able to do quite well on their own shortly after birth? Wouldn't this be an advantage that evolution would have wanted to retain in the human species?

Answer 10

armmm how long have you got?