For those that deny evolution?

Question

Have you ever done any research on it? Like the galapagos islands? Or theses group of people, don't remember their name, have 50% better vision underwater than europeans because they live on boats. Yeah we think we are related to the monkey but you seem to take that a little to literally. It doesn't mean some ape suddenly had a human baby pop out of it. The process is slow and still happening today.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Morganie: The ones that live in Indonisia that knew the tsunmi was coming when they noticed a change in the water.. sorry i couldn't find it. Glad that was all you had to say though.

How did God get "there"? and there are questions if you read, maybe the beginning...

And yeah we don't have enough evidence to support macro but science is a growing process and the study of evolution takes time.

When people complain about rude comments on here sometimes i don't see where theyre coming from but man you people are stubburn. Not only do you ignore that question but you insult what i am saying.

Answer 1

ok i'll check your link...
im open-mind to this

Answer 2

Yeah, I've done a little research on it. But I don't deny it.

Just for a point of contention (I'm sure, for a few people), macroevolution and microevolution are basically the same thing. The funny thing is, they aren't even real biology terms--they are only used now primarily in intelligent design literature and propaganda. Biologists already have words for each of them--speciation (macro) and adaptation (micro). They were first used by a Russian biologist, but they have been key words in the ID and creationist movements of the past 10 years or so, (in my opinion to try and confuse the lay people), and are not used very often by biologists today.

And the biggest problem people have with speciation is the "no one's ever seen it happen" argument, which is absolute rubbish--there is plenty of documentation for it. The best might be the study done that investigates the underground mosquito species that have arisen from Culex pipiens in London.

The only other argument people have is the "variation of the kinds" argument, which I honestly don't understand. Apparently it's okay for one species of mosquito to evolve into a completely different, genetically unique species of mosquito, but the same principle, applied over millions of generations instead of hundreds or even thousands, can just as likely result in something that is not a mosquito, given that enough mutations have built up in the population. It sounds more like an argument from incredulity to me.

At any rate, even if you don't accept changes in kind or don't believe any of the studies that actually show speciation, there is still no denying that most will accept adaptation, and since there is no barrier to larger scale change, and since we would expect small adaptations to build up in organisms to effect large scale changes, adaptation actually infers speciation. (Or, if you prefer, microevolution actually infers macroevolution). So, even if we don't have the evidence, we still have logical inductive reasoning, that doesn't presuppose anything we don't already have evidence of.

As for Apostle Jeff's assertion, all evidence that supports creation must also support evolution, since I've never heard any credible scientific evidence that supports creation and creation alone. No offense meant. And if you have some, let me know what it is and enlighten me.

I'm betting that nemesis780 and Kuulio didn't have my biology class when they were taught evolution. When a new species arises, the earlier one doesn't necesarily go extinct. In some cases it might, but it doesn't have to.

And I'm sorry to tell you this, but humans are apes. We didn't come from chimps, we share a common ancestor. No respected scientist or science teacher will tell you that we actually came from the current monkeys or apes that are present now. To say that "it is surprising that humans and monkeys are both alive today" is akin to saying it is surprising perch and carp are both alive today, or dogs and wolves, or tigers and lions, or elms and oaks, or mice and shrews, or snakes and lizards, or mushrooms and yeast. In fact, according to this line of thinking, there would only be one organism alive at any time history, which would then evolve into another organism (replacing the previous one), etc., which obviously doesn't happen, and obviously is not what the theory or the process of evolution is about.

And there is no such thing as a missing link. There are transitional fossils or not transitional fossils; it's highly unlikely that *any* fossils are found, once you understand how rarely they actually occur in nature--and yet, we have found them and continue to find them. Finding them is a boon; in no way does the theory of evolution hinge on whether or not we have paleontological evidence of any anscestors.

Sorry to get so long winded...it's Sunday, and I have no students today.

Answer 3

What you first mentioned is adaptation not Evolution, and Evolution is the growth and delopement's within a species, not a the change from one species to another species. Scientists are saying we evolved from the Chimpanzee If that was true then that breed would not longer exist. I am a Christian and I believe in Evolution but I believe most Evolutionists are way off. but some parts are accurate. Also about apes and Man together, their are still many missing links and scientists can not 100% link the connection between ape and man and as of this day they have not found those missing links. So all they have done is examine it and see their are a few similarities and guessed and assumed we came from apes, I believe what we see as a so called cave man could actually of been another breed of ape that is a very big possibility. But your entitled to your opinion. God bless you, and peace be with you.

Answer 4

What makes the whole apes evolved into people so ridiculous is the fact that there are still apes today. Shouldn't they have found there way to extinction since the whole evolution thing is based on the survival of the fittest? Adaptations happen due to a particular need or demand of the environment for the cause of survival. In order for an ape to have a "need" to change there has to be a demand for the sake of survival that requires something to need to evolve. Surprisingly, there are all kinds of creatures that scientists say evolved from some other creature millions of years ago, literally every other evolving creature except that of monkeys. Our ancestors are surprisingly the only evolution ancestoral animal that lives with it's predecessors. Odd coincidence or scientific retardation?

Answer 5

Evolution has, if nothing else, inspired many great science-fiction movies which are evolving with ever more and grander special effects.

Answer 6

Yes, I have done studies on evolution. I have researched that Galapagos Islands as well, why is it so hard to believe that an almighty God DESIGNED them that way. Think of it this way... evolution... go all the way back to the first thing... how in the world did IT get there?

Answer 7

"Or theses group of people, don't remember their name, have 50% better vision underwater than europeans because they live on boats."

lol.

You might want to take a look at the difference between macro and micro evolution - there's a big difference for some people. I don't know of anyone that denies micro evolution, but some people - myself included do not think that there is sufficient evidence for macro-evolution.

Answer 8

You can tell if a tsunami is coming because the water starts receding from the shoreline. It's not evolution.

Answer 9

i dont know whether or not evolution is true. but what youre talking about is microevolution, species changing to adapt to their environments. most creationists believe in that.

Answer 10

New life evolves each day in the Amazon rain forests.
Genesis supports evolution. But man was created by God in his own image.

Answer 11

evolution begins after God said:Let it be