What is your opinion on the theory of evolution?

My Opinion? I think the Evidence for evolution has been interpreted with a Deliberate Philosophical & Ideological bias, Your question and responses by other atheist and what not here is obvious proof of that, Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

The status of our lives won't replace if we detect the lacking link. it extremely is going to be the equivalent of the different great discovery. wisdom in technological expertise desires no justification, as such, as a results of fact the pursuit of wisdom is a means and an end, in itself. i'm uncertain how lots money is spent on finding for the "lacking link", yet i'm useful that different wisdom is gained alongside the way, and various early human varieties have not got any doubt been got here across on an identical time as finding for it. There are various reasons for looking out if the concept of evolution is authentic. at the beginning, i think there is sufficient evidence that it extremely is positively authentic, and the arguments against it are predominantly faith-based, no longer scientific. organising this as an undeniable actuality might easily deal many faiths a extreme physique blow, particularly the fundamentalist christians. Secondly, As I stated formerly, technological expertise is approximately getting to grasp, and should not be constrained by technique of thinking approximately its significance.

I think for the most part it is the work of some very imaginative people who are jumping to conclusions.

I won't try to guess at their motives, but i think science would be more believable and dependable if they only reported trustworthy facts rather than theorizing all the time about how something might have happened or could not have happened.

One day a T-Rex is a lizard the next day its a bird. One day all life is completely dependent on the energy from the sun and the next day life is discovered on the bottom of the ocean completely independent of the sun. Science needs to be more careful about what it teaches as fact. I think honest scientist should say "this is what we think we know so far."

"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"

...isn't evolution. Evolution is just a change over time*. It doesn't always result in new "kinds." It doesn't even always result in speciation or significant change.

"Kinds" is a creationist term, it's meaningless in science.

Denying evolution, which you can see with your own eyes, is silly.

Microevolution within species is valid. However, macroevolution into another species is not supported by the fossil record. A plethora of fossils just suddenly appeared as if they were created by God.

Evolutionary paleoecologist Simon Conway Morris--who is not an intelligent design (ID) proponent--quite explicitly observes that convergence poses a major difficulty for the construction of phylogenetic trees:

I believe the topic of convergence is important for two main reasons. One is widely acknowledged, if as often subject to procrustean procedures of accommodation. It concerns phylogeny, with the obvious circularity of two questions: do we trust our phylogeny and thereby define convergence (which everyone does), or do we trust our characters to be convergent (for whatever reason) and define our phylogeny? As phylogeny depends on characters, the two questions are inseparable. ... Even so, no phylogeny is free of its convergences, and it is often the case that a biologist believes a phylogeny because in his or her view certain convergences would be too incredible to be true. ...

During my time in the libraries I have been particularly struck by the adjectives that accompany descriptions of evolutionary convergence. Words like, 'remarkable', 'striking', 'extraordinary', or even 'astonishing' and 'uncanny' are common place...the frequency of adjectival surprise associated with descriptions of convergence suggests there is almost a feeling of unease in these similarities. Indeed, I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders.

(Simon Conway Morris, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, pp. 127-128 (Cambridge University Press, 2003).)

Another good example comes from a recent treatise published by Harvard University Press which states that convergent evolution causes "difficulties" for building trees:

Cladistics can run into difficulties in its application because not all character states are necessarily homologous. Certain resemblances are convergent -- that is, the result of independent evolution. We cannot always detect these convergences immediately, and their presence may contradict other similarities, "true homologies" yet to be recognized. Thus, we are obliged to assume at first that, for each character, similar states are homologous, despite knowing that there may be convergence among them.

(Guillaume Lecointre & Hervé Le Guyader, The Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic Classification, p. 16 (Harvard University Press, 2006).)

Likewise, a paper in Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics explains the "difficulties" facing molecular phylogenies as a result of convergence:

Given the difficulties associated with alignment and with the establishing the conditions of consistency and convergence, it is clear that molecular phylogenies should not be accepted uncritically as accurate representations of the degree of relatedness between organisms.

(Rudolph Raff, Charles R. Marshall, and James M. Turbeville, "Using DNA sequences to unravel the Cambrian radiation of the animal phyla," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 25:351-375 (1994).)

Thus, the textbook Explore Evolution says the following:

Convergence is a deeply intriguing mystery, given how complex some of the structures are. Some scientists are skeptical that an undirected process like natural selection and mutation would have stumbled upon the same complex structure many different times. Advocates of neo-Darwinism, on the other hand, think convergent structures simply show that natural selection can produce functional innovations more than once. For other scientists, the phenomenon of convergence raises doubts about how significant homology really is as evidence for Common Descent. Convergence, by definition, affirms that similar structures do not necessarily point to common ancestry. Even neo-Darwinists acknowledge this. But if similar features can point to having a common ancestor--and to not having a common ancestor--how much does "homology" really tell us about the history of life? (p. 48)

When building evolutionary trees, evolutionists assume that functional genetic similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. Except for when it isn't. And when the data doesn't fit their assumptions, evolutionists explain it away as the result of "convergence."

Using this methodology, one can explain virtually any dataset. Is there a way to falsify common descent, even in the face of convergent genetic similarity? If convergent genetic evolution is common, how does one know if their tree is based upon homologous sequences or convergent ones? Critics like me see the logic underlying evolutionary trees to be methodologically inconsistent, unpersuasive, and ultimately arbitrary.

Love

In my opinion, it's really damned cool <g>

And it's the thing that took biology from being a collection of vaguely interesting phenomena to being a real predictive science. As a future biologist, I approve.

I find it fascinating and realise that the theory itself is fully proven by the mountains of evidence although science will continue to adjust its specific conclusions as new evidence comes to light - this happened a little earlier than we thought etc.

I don't believe it accurately accounts for the observed phenomena (in other words it doesn't seem true) See Walter Veith, who taught evolutionism on a PHD level for years, and now is a creationist.

Fascinating.

I visited Darwin's home and it is really quite moving when you learn how much his wife, who was a devout Christian, supported him when he was going through anguish about publishing his Theory in the face of the Church and the Establishment.