Question for Poeple that Believe Evolution is real?

Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theoty of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.

• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.

• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute

• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:

• Scales had to have mutated into hair.

• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.

• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.s...

• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:

• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

• Living "Fossils"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm

• The Cambrian Explosion

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.h...

• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm

• "Missing Links"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.h...

Most textbooks are out of date and poorly presented. Looking at one even casually, it is no wonder that young people seldom have an interest in reading them. When I went to school, there were 9 planets in the galaxy. Now we know of at least a hundred. We once thought that planets were rare- an exception. Now it seems that under certain circumstances, planets are the rule.

1) The experiments did not show how life was created, but was able to demonstrate that the organization of protiens into DNA-like chains was a natural occurance under certain conditions. This was previously thought to be unlikely- now it seems to be almost guaranteed.

2) The Cambrian Explosion is discussed in modern texts a great deal! Hilariously, the "short" period of time we refer to as an "explosion" was about 40 million years. And Darwin is not the foremost authority on evolution- he was simply the first to be credited for the concepts that led to modern evolutionary thinking.

3)The fossil records are full of holes- that is certainly true. There is remarkably little data for us to work with. Consider how terribly difficult it must be for anything to leave a lasting trace for such a long time, then multiply that by the likelihood of us stumbling across it! The fact that we have found as much as we actually have is a marvel indeed! The origins of man are not difficult to trace, although they are still debated to a degree. There are people who will still insist that the different "races" of modern man came from interbreeding with primitive early relatives of Homo Sapiens. There is little evidence to support this claim.

In short, we are learning more each day. What little we know about ancient history and the evolution of life on earth is possible only through great and rare discoveries. No scientist claims to know everything. The light grows ever brighter!

Not that I'm on a mission to make people believe in evolution who deny the obvious, but the case for evolution is anything but overstated, it's simply pure fact.

Evolution is the basis of all biological science, and I'd like to hear from Creationists what they have to say about DNA, generally, and about the fact that our human DNA is 99% identical to those of chimpanzees.

It's proven fact that today's apes and humans share a common ancestor.

The whole concept of natural reproduction only makes sense if you explain it the way Darwin did, although, of course, he had no idea about DNA and the constant recombining of that genetic material, which is, as we know today, the motor of evolution.

The Cambrian Explosion is a very interesting event in the history of life, indeed, but it is not unexplained, it's merely unclear which explanation is correct. No scientist in their right mind would question evolution because of it.

True, evolution isn't yet fully understood and explained (neither are the origins of life, but that's something different), but that does not mean it is questionable as a concept. Evolution is a slow process, spanning across millions and billions of years, which apparently makes it difficult for some people to believe, because you cannot see it happening - just like, if you will, an imaginary record which needs one hundred thousand years to complete one turn: Just because you don't see it's moving doesn't change the fact that it actually is.

1) It's called the principle of uniformitarianism. Lots of syllables, I'm afraid.

2) Well ... the Burgess Shale discoveries of 1909 provided evidence of complex organisms in the Pre-Cambrian. Now, I'm assuming your textbook was published relatively recently. The importance of the Burgess Shale findings were not appreciated fully till the 1980s, but if your textbook is older than that, have a look at the link below. Of course, it depends what textbook you're talking about. A broad textbook on the subject will not necessarily waste space on something that is not an open problem.

3) Err...sorry, I'm afraid you've lost me on that one.

There are gaps in the fossil record, due partly to the fact that fossilisation can only occur in quite specialised conditions. New evidence unearthed (often literally) over the years has improved our understanding, and led to details of evolutionary theory evolving (oops! That word again). However, there has never been a find that has been inconsistent with the broad theory.

Why should I bother explaining myself to you? You haven't even bothered to use Spell Check.

1. The textbooks describe the experiments which show how life's building blocks MAY have formed... "MAY" is the operative word here. Evolution is still a theory.

2. My geology textbook did describe the Cambrian explosion. This is common knowledge available to anyone. Evolution is still a theory.

3. Why are artists' drawings of Jesus Christ, Mary, the apostles, etc. used to justify Christian claims that we are the creation of an unseen deity? Why have Christians resorted to idol worship, symbolic cannibalism, threats and violence to promote their THEORY of creationism? I haven't seen any reports of Darwin killing anybody to support his THEORY.

I have more faith that theory of evolution will eventually be proven than that we all just magically appeared one day.

you do present a well thought out question. So, I'll present my thoughts. The building block theory, The big bang theory, Human evolving theory are just that - theories! With all its flaws, until disproven, A theory will remain. If a therory IS proven, than it becomes fact or common knowledge. How does a theory become fact? If you have a theory about something and prove it someone else should be able to come along - perform the same/similar tests and come out with the same results.

Okay, so is this a question asked with the assumption that the Bible is a fountain of veracity? I like logic, and the very idea of someone making mud into a real, live man is just ludicrous. Do you think Pinocchio is a real story, too? Scientific theories are always posed with the understanding that better understanding may come along, and that's OK. I'd rather keep learning than blindly believe fairy stories.

1 because while his expirments were not close to the early earth they did have the same formula, and it created those famouse blocks for later life.

2. I beleive this was after a major extinction and the reason it seems that way is because we have very little evidnece, but we theorize that it worked just like life before it and after this period. You can argue this but it wont work for all the sea life before the "explosion"

3.they draw from bones and remians we have found, the drawing of links that have not been found are as good as sci-fi, baloney. But the other are renderings of the remains we found and probaly soomwhat flawed but many scinces are not based on drawing think of them as projections and even just art.

evolution is real. i am sorry that it negates some of ur relegious beliefs. but thats it. i can give you a long logical explanation but you wont be able to see it because of ur prejudice. one can awake a sleeping person. but no one can awake a person who does not want to open his eyes and is feigning sleep.

this argument is so old now. it is challanged since it was first introduced. so many times explained. evey other day again someone posts it on YA. do u people believe if you keep challanging it evolution will stop? may be we will have grown men n women dropping from skies and nobody will have to give birth to children and then not let them evolve into a grown person.

remeber when gallilio told west that earth revolves around sun he was sued by church and made to confess that he was wrong. now grow up.

The theory of evolution is not perfect, nor it is complete chronologically from the beginning of life on earth. It is the best and most supported (in terms of physical evidence) theory we have. If you have another theory that has more physical evidence to support it than evolution does, I am all ears.

well.. they havnt proved the missing lisk is there yet.. but the chance is there, time will tell though..

To believe in God and to see that evolution is possible isn't a conflicting belief if you think about it..

Even if there is more evidence of evolution than the existance of an Almighty Power, you don't need proof for faith... Thats why were here.. to test that faith (im realy off the topic huh?? oh well.. thanks for the 10points in advance!) ;)