Why is evolution doubted so strongly when it's actually been proven in even a kid's science project?

Because it challenges some people's deeply held religious beliefs, thus instead of accepting the evidence, some choose to ignore the evidence.

I've found that no matter how many studies, experiments, and data you bring to an argument, a creationist will simply ignore it all.

Evolutionary technological know-how isn't the comparable as mathematical technological know-how. Evolutionary technological know-how is in accordance with inferential reasoning no longer the deductive reasoning it truly is achieved in maximum mathematical proofs. there is _NO_ a hundred% shown in the non-mathematical sciences. you are able to truly come very on the edge of asserting the data leaves little doubt, yet someone won't be able to say that such an thought is genuine with none doubt. [i.e. the hypothesis "with little doubt, a hundred% might desire to have" shows a faux effect of the non-mathematical sciences.] With a unsuitable hypothesis, the conclusions one derives from it are beside the point. technological know-how is an exceedingly efficient device. It provides the proper answer we've so a strategies. It does not supply a hundred% fact. (Even _HS_ texts are as much as date each and every 5 years to replace and ultimate the tips.) ... an elementary occasion: Newton's regulation of general Gravitation replaced into considered that final word on the subject count till Einstein's artwork greater desirable defined particular aspects of gravity's habit. Newton's formula is a good rule of thumb even inspite of the undeniable fact that it's not the final word. dark count is at the instant being proposed _partly_ in view it truly is an much less stressful rationalization for why our fashions of gravity do no longer journey a number of our modern astronomical measurements.

Sorry, but that's not evolution. The evolution theory is based on random mutations. As soon as someone starts selecting the most productive organisms and 'tweeks' the environment, it's no longer random, but guided.

Fail.

What Daniel did is built an organic machine. To prove evolution, he would have had to let it happen.

But that's not how it happens in nature. A true experiment would be to put all the bacteria in one dish and see what happens. But that would be a waste of time because it's already known that plastic takes 1000 years to deteriorate. So if nature was allowed to run it's course, it would take 1000 years for the bacteria to eat the plastic because of no manipulation. But it was manipulated by an intelligent force. Again, that goes against evolution.

Mutations -- one of the basis's behind evolution -- are generally seen in amphibians first. But, two very interesting mutations have been seen in the past 30 years, and both in cats. One is the Scottish Fold, the other, the American Curl. Both of these are spontaneous mutations, and who knows what the evolutionary purposes are. Interestingly, many cat fanciers are finding that Folds are less sensitive to noise and sound (the folded ear over the ear canal) and are more suitable for noisy environments. While this reason for the mutation may not be the be-all and end-all, no doubt, at the reasonably slow rate that evolution takes place, who knows what the "final" purpose of these evolutionary mutations will be.

Great question. Great work on the part of Daniel !

Thankfully many Christians read the Bible metaphorically and believe in scientific proof. They retain that God created the universe and that the time-scale of the Bible was simply a reflection of ideas of the time it was written.

However, where the stick really hurts is that nobody can say where the Bible should be read literally and where it should be read metaphorically.

This leads to the most disastrous interpretations and ideologies, which have led to massacres in the past. Atheists prefer to see the whole of the Bible as a metaphor, contemporary to the adolescence of civilisation, relative to a small religious sect and certainly not infallible.

I'm sorry but science has yet to so us primordial ooze. But DNA has shown a common maternal ancestor, Africa Eve. The Bible gives a common maternal ancestor Eve. And thus far the missing link comes up non human.

In 1994 a article was published about an EPA contract researcher. He was working on the common fungus. Dry Rot. He noticed a similarity to Nitroglycerin and DDT. When these two compounds where mixed with the dry rot fungus was able to break them down. Prior to this experiment bot compounds where believed to non degradable. It has been know for century's that everything man can do , Nature can undo. But that dose not prove evolution. So far all they have shown is proof of what could not adapt to the environment they lived in. Have you noticed that Apes are not found outside of Africa, Monkeys are found on three. And Man on all, 4,000 years ago Moses stated that man had domain over the Earth. He still dose.

If they were smart, they would say that is not an example of natural selection, but rather of artificial selection. If they were not smart, they would say something stupid about still being the same species.

But then, if they were smart they wouldn't be creationists.

Here's the problem with the whole "you did it, so it wasn't 'natural' selection" statement. Several of these people have claimed that something is not science if it doesn't have "laboratory" data. But if you do it in a lab, it didn't happen naturally.

How convenient for them, don't you think?

The problem has usually been the measurement of time or the condensation of time. How do you prove something that goes beyond several generations or your life span? Also, how do you prove something when you or your ancestors weren't present but see the "footprints" or "fossils" ? How long does fossilization take?

What time clock is used for Neanderthals for example? They didn't have Rolexes or Seikos ? Your question is very interesting!

P.S. If evolution is strictly true, why are there not ape-cats, or elephant-mice, or dogsalamanders, or crowturtles? How about emu-centipedes? Lighten up everybody !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Technically, it is still a theory. That being said anyone with common sense would believe it because creationism just isn't plausible.

Including the Big Bang theory....cover all the bases.

Wow! That's an amazing experiment! That could even be useful in the green movement.

Anyway, evolution does touch one of those sensitive areas in religious beliefs. It's really more of a fear of punishment for not believing everything to be true in their religion, that they never branch out and see what science is saying as well.

i hate to point this out to you but thats not evolution. thats adaption, or in this case, genetic breeding. evolution takes hundreds of thousands of millions of years. i believe in evolution, but i think we dont know as much as we think we do. how often do we hear scientists say, "this is the way it is!" and then a few years later another says, "we thought it was this, but now our research says this." i'm a christian. i will readily admit that i dont know everything. i couldn't tell you evolution was wrong or right, although i lean towards it being right. i dont believe either side should say the other is wrong since you really can't PROVE either way