Why do they think that when dogs have small changes in there of spring is evolution it it proves everything that one guy said, just because the mother or fathers traits are being passed on, and why can't you find any slowly laid down sedementry rock anywhere in the world, only in text books? Im very curious to figure out this.
122735
I do believe in evolution because that just means cahanges over a period of time but,i don't believe in darwins theory of evolution or the big bang.people who are "scared" of believing in creation are looking for excuses.i don't know about sedementary rock except what my tutor  and teacher tells me.
185522
As it seems this question has raised yet another debate, I'd like to add my 2cents. As the father of paleoboy, and a Christian, I believe I have raised my son well. Because I have not fallen into the ignorance, as I will call it, of pre-empting God. Evolution is merely a theory, man should  not be assumed to be included in this factor. In fact, there exists more questions  of man's progress than proof of any evolution. \nThe animals however, and lower life, could have been designed by God in many numerous ways. Who are we to question the means, or claim to know as to how God works? He works, as we know, in mysterious ways! Could he not have in fact, by design, created species that could evolve and adapt to earth changes, if for no other reason, to allow clues behind for the event of man to discover, to weed out those that would choose to use this information, to disprove His existence?\nTo claim we have all the answers to the mysteries of God is to fall into ignorance as Christians. I back up my son's answer, as an open, unquestioning mind as to the works of God. Paleontology is a science, based on evidence, and a great deal of theory, which is always subject to change with newly discovered evidence.
313792
Seriously, it's a nice question.\n\nUnfortunately, any worthwhile answer to the details you’ve provided is beyond the scope of Yahoo Answers. You’d do better scouring the web for books on the topic from both perspectives and/or joint perspectives, if you really want to understand what both sides and not just one believes and why.\n\nHowever, I can address your literal question, which is, “Why don’t people ‘get’ this?”\n\nOne of the arguments for why many people “don’t understand” the points you’re contributing is because there has been SUCH an extensive, detailed discourse over the validity of evolution for more than a century, there’s no way to stay abreast of every development and every argument (pro and con) unless one is either working professionally in the field or is committed to the subject as a full-time hobby.\n\n(I’ve dabbled in it on and off over twenty years myself -- just enough to know what it would cost me to really get my hands dirty and be able to rationally debate for either side. And even being the philosophy and knowledge junkie I am, I just have far too many other things on my plate.)\n\nAlong with the breadth of information that must be consumed by the average person is the degree of critical thinking skills needed to weigh such extensive and detailed arguments/evidence for each position, as well as determine which authorities are actually trustworthy and which are not. That’s another full-time job in itself – besides the fact that many people simply aren’t “wired” for that level of analysis.\n\nRealistically, I would NOT expect many people to be well-versed on the geological data regarding evolution, understand the biological and ecological impact, explore all the contexts for how things might most logically fit together, and so forth. The topic is simply far too time- and resource-intensive. \n\nCoupled with this is that your argument seems not to be concerned in the least with the question of “Why?” \n\nWhy are we here? What makes humans different, if we are? And how does this impact us personally in our day-to-day lives? To many people, the evolutionary debate is irrelevant to the daily demands of life and what they want to get out of it. \n\nEvolutionary theory has nothing to do with who they love, what they sacrifice for, who they care about, what they are willing to dedicate their energy to. It doesn’t help them figure out who to marry, or how to pay their bills, or how to help their kids back on a good track, or decide what car to buy. It doesn’t give them any sort of reason for them personally to live.\n\nIn fact, it rather runs counter to all that. If your supposition is completely true, then no inherent purpose to life exists, we’re all just animals cursed by the cosmos with irrelevant self-awareness, and death is the end. Yet most people want to live, and live meaningfully.\n\nThe narrative they want to create of their lives is actually the OPPOSITE of the narrative of evolution, which (to me and others) necessarily devalues human existence.\n\nWe can argue about whether your theoretical narrative is factually true or not (and people of course have been doing so for years); but in the meanwhile, the evolutionary narrative has no value to the majority of people out there, and it even undermines the meaning they believe exists inherently in their lives.\n\nSo I wouldn’t broadly call most people ignorant of evolution, as much as I’d call the details of evolution irrelevant to most people.\n\n(And if evolution's true as you've laid it out, why does it even matter that most people understand it anyway? Their understanding or lack of it has no lasting ramifications.)
44713
Ahem. People, he's asking about the RATE of change. Not whether changes occur or whether evolution occurs. He clearly already knows that.\n\n__________________________________\n\nWell done. You’ve asked one of the most controversial questions in current evolutionary biology.  Much debate rages about this subject right now. \n\nWhat you are describing is commonly referred to as the evolution of evolvability. As you point out, if a population doesn’t have sufficient variation then environmental change could lead to extinction. But at the same time if the population is too variable the outliers will simply perish in current conditions. For example if elephants contained the inherent variability to produce young twice as big or the size of a rabbit those individuals would die.\n\nThe belief was for 100 years or so that the selective pressure of current environment would maintain a fairly tight rein on variability, that mutation rates were approximately constant and that survival in times of change was simply a case of pot luck. But then people started to look at the fossil record and the real world and it seemed like that wasn’t plausible. Novelties seemed to appear almost overnight, and they appeared almost any time they were needed. \n\nSo then came the concept of punctuated equilibrium. The idea that  a population would sit still for long periods, then as conditions changed they would suddenly leap forwards into a radically different form. That was all well and good, but it was basically just a restatement of the observations, not really an explanatory theory.\n\nIn the past 15 years ago there has been a lot of debate about the idea that organisms have evolved to evolve. That they have evolved in such a way that they are physically stable in times of environmental stasis, but when the environment becomes stressful change they can either mutate more, or reshuffle genes or express pattern of dormant genes to produce stable phenotypic novelties at rates that far exceed background rates.\n\n\nThe theory certainly makes sense. It’s hard to argue that such a trait wouldn’t; be a survival advantage. Unfortunately the evidence is ambiguous. And at the moment there are umpteen dozen theoretical mechanisms to explain how it could occur, and they are impossible to separate out. There is some work which has shown that many species can open up dormant genetic material for expression and re-assortment in response to stress (see first link below). And some experimental evidence suggests mutation rates increase in response to environmental change. Some say that prions are the key. Other favour inherent genetic instability in those individuals that survive initial changes, meaning that the decedent population is inherently prone to genetic varaiation until the environment stabilises and kills of the outliers again. Other propose that assortment of populations within the same or closely related species could explain it. But at this point we can’t even prove that genetic variation does change under stress. But at this point we just don’t know. \n\nYou ask a damn good question but the concept is hard to study and harder to establish with any certainty.\n\n_______\n>>>>Being able to actually understand how, and under what\n>>>> circumstances mutations happen strikes me as extremely\n>>>> important.\n\nWe've actually got a pretty good handle on how and when mutations occur. This is more of a question of when they are expressed or encouraged. Organisms have the ability repair genetic damage thorugh several mechanisms. They also have the ability shield the nucleus fom many mutagens. The issue is whether they may be able to damp down those processes to encourage more mutations.\n\n>>>> I can definitely see that species that do not have the \n>>>>capability to mutate in response to external forces\n>>>> would be selected against.\n\nYes, it's a rather hard
657373
Post an addendum to your question - you don't need a whole new question.\n\nLeoin is obviously blissfully unaware (or more likely doesn't want to hear) that man and ape SHARED a common ancestor and evolution is based on branches not strength lines.\n\nOne more bit of amateur science to try to bolster an obviously wavering faith.
304152
wat are you talking about?  Evolution is something that every major scientist agrees with.  It does fit with up-to-date findings.  Hello, we just figured out the last DNA thing and that totally supports the idea of evolution.  Also, a theory must be disproved to be discarded, evolution has not been disproved.  Go back to school!
659084
Evolution is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about it. It is a religion. You cannot prove that we came from nothing. Its not even possible. You cannot create nor distroy matter, thats physics. So then how did all this "matter" around us get here. There has to be a creator. The animals may have different variations but they're still the same kind. Everything comes after its own kind. Same with people, there are tall, short, skinny, big. You'll never get a bannana from a fish. The reason you say the earth is billions of years old is because you think if you give it enough time it might happen. God created everything.
613043
whats sad to me is the standard sheeple line of there is no proof of evolution,\n\ni could accept there is not enough evidence to support this in my mind,\n\nthe sheeple mentality is most apparent in the discussion regarding evolution, it shakes out the sheeple,\n\nit clearly separates the men from the sheeple
543812
You've got a few misconceptions there.  I'm going to assume you are really asking a question and not just fishing for agreement, so I'll try and straighten them out.\n\nFirst of all, IF man evolved from other primates, it would be more proper to say that mankind arose from -A- primate.  To draw an analogy, if you build a house out of lumber from trees, it doesn't mean there are no trees left in the world... only the trees you used to make your house are gone.  So it is perfectly plausible for monkeys to still be around even though something else might have evolved from them.  Populations become isolated and develop different traits all the time - try comparing someone from China, Iceland, and Africa some time.\n\nSecondly, I don't suspect any evolutionist would say that man evolved from monkeys.  Instead they would suggest that they had a common ancestor, and both man AND monkeys are different from that ancestor, just in different ways.\n\nAnd last is the question of transition.  And transition implies you're going somewhere.  Since none of us know what life will be like a hundred million years from now, it may very well be appropriate to say that EVERYTHING now is in a state of transition from what it used to be from what it will be.  Looking for 'half-fins' and the like is a straw-man argument, though there is certainly no dearth of vestigal organs and DNA around in most species, if you only look for it.\n\nI respect your desire to dispute the validity of evolution.  Most true scientists WELCOME having their theories challenged - it can only make them stronger and get rid of bad ones.  But if you're going to tilt at a windmill, make sure your lance is pointed in the right direction!
66832
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
27617
Ow!  My toes!  ;) (kidding)\n\nI think it's ludicrous that people are treating the theory as if there's any real debate among scientists on the matter.  Global Warming is far, far, far more contested than is evolution; yet in the popular press, you'd never know it.\n\nWhat I get sick of is all the crap about "missing links" or whatever.  Quite frankly, I don't give a rats @$$ about the fossil record.  Sure, it was important to Darwin when he formulated the theory, but one can't really expect that the fossil record should be any where near complete, and all the arguments against evolution focus on this field.  I studied molecular biology, and it is in molecular biology that you'll find way, way stronger support for the theory.\n\nWhen I list the sorts of evidence that come from molecular biology (Homologous proteins, the near universality of the genetic code (eg the relation between codons and amino acids), genetic drift in non-essential parts of homologous proetiens, DNA technology that can show relationship, developmental homology (ie ontogeny and it's relationship to phylogeny), etc) I get people acting like I presented no evidence because they couldn't even understand that the list I've given actually is evidence.  It takes a long time to understand the manner in which DNA becomes a protein, and the way that proteins fold, the way they work, and the way their related.  Until you understand that, the "Big Picture" is not clear.  But to those that *do* understand the Big Picture, it becoems obvious.\n\nI can't explain to a starving thrid world farmer why it's in his interests to become literate, along with the rest of his village, so they can better understand how to, say, help prevent epidemics in the short term (by being able to understand routes of transmission better) or bring about democracy in the long term.  But living in the industrialized west, the benefits of literacy are manifest.  The person who doesn't understand science seems to me in many ways to be like that starving farmer.\n\nPeople who understand science will dictate the fate of much in the world, and they will have the power to do much good.  By not making an effort to learn science, you set yourself back greatly.  But by actively attacking science--like the starving farming burning a public library, or like the Haitian who steals the copper wires set up to build an electrical infrastructure that would bring long-term prosperity in exchange for a short-term benefit in selling scrap metal--the skeptic zealots do themselves and the entire Christian faith a great disservice.\n\nIn response to your additional questions:\n1-4 are NOT--repeat, they are NOT--aspects of the theory of evolution by natural selection.  This is exactly what I'm talking about--people are criticizing a theory they don't even begin to understand.\n\n1) refers to the Big Bang theory, not evolution by natural selection.  2) is a theory of planetary formation, not a theory of speciation.  3) and 4) are aspects of a theory of abiogenesis, which is different from evolution.  Only 5) actually regards evolution.\n\nEvolution by natural selection dictates that small variations between members of a species accumulate over the long term to become major changes, resulting in speciation.  And yes, I believe that that happened.\n\nI have issues with the big bang, but those are not relevant here--they are for reasons of physics that go beyond what I can explain right here.\n\nPlanetary formation, while not a part of evolution, is largely unavoidable.  All matter has mass, and this results in gravitational attraction.  If dust is in space, it will collapse in on itself.  Physics-wise, this is about as mind-blowing as the fact that water + dirt = mud.  It would be a greater stretch of the imagination to imagine such formation not occuring, because the laws that dictate such a formation are at work all around us all the time.\n\n
132107
We know that evolution exists. Science can prove it. We also know that modern man was created by God, the Bible proves that! So what about all those creatures that existed on the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years? Of course they evolved. And some of them very much resemble modern man. But God said He created us in His image. Maybe not necessarily physically, God doesn't have a body! But the difference between us and those creatures is indeed that "missing link" that cannot be "found". The link is God. The difference is that we (modern man) were created with a free will. No other creatures have ever had that. \n\nIf you read Genesis 1:1 you see that God created the heaven and earth. But something very drastic happened probably over a very long period of time between verse one and two because we see in verse two that the earth was without form, and void...\nNow what does God create that is without form and void? Nothing! Everything God creates is perfect.\nSo what happened and how many years passed between verse one and verse two? Science tells us that, there's no mystery. Creatures of all kinds evolved, the popular idea is something hit the earth and tilted it on it's axis. That triggered all kinds of weather changes, ice ages countered by global warming (without benefit of fossil fuels I might add), dinosaurs lived and died off. Primitive man-like creatures became dominant. It's all there!\n\nSo yes, you can believe in God and understand that creatures indeed evolved. But modern man, with all of his uniqueness, was created by God.\n\nNow concerning your lack of passion for your faith... read Acts Chapter 2 in the New Testament a couple of times and see if that piques your interest. I'll guarantee you have never been taught that in the catholic church. You need to ask yourself why. It is clear by the scriptures that Jesus intends that everyone with a love for the truth receive the gift of the Holy Ghost just as described in Acts 2. Read it again! It still happens just that way. It's still real. I see it every week. I see the power of the Spirit being used through ordinary people like you and me. Ordinary people like Jesus and the disciples were. Jesus didn't come and die so that we would have to seek everything we needed through a priest. He came that we could boldy go directly to Him with our needs. That is scripture! You need forgiveness? You need to ask Jesus, not another man. You need compassion and love? Ask Jesus, don't ask another man. Do you want to understand exactly what He has for you in this life and the next? You need to ask Him, not some portly old fellow in a black robe. Ask God directly. Go boldly to the throne and tell Him you need to know more. You will be amazed what you will experience if you are sincere and have enough character!\n\nUpdate 5-1-06\nI read with interest one of the answers below that demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the churches today. Sure, just ask someone (other than God). And if you don't like that answer just go ask someone else. That say's two things:\n1. The "authotities" in the churches don't even agree on truth.\n2. People only are interested in what they want to hear.\n\nThat's what I meant when I said God will show you the truth if you seek it from Him with a true desire to know. Why ask another man who has no clue anyway? We are talking about something as important as the salvation of your soul. Why wouldn't you go directly to the source if the source asked, indeed pleaded with you, to do so?\nAnd Paul absolutely did not encourage people to believe whichever way was best for them. He wrote to the Ephesians in Ep. 4:5 that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". You see this repeated throughout the New Testament. There are not many paths to God, there is one.  Please, read the scriptures for yourself. You do not need someone to interpret the Bible for you. Let God show you
589878
First, let me get some ambiguous terms out of the way. First, there's micro-evolution. This is like breeding dogs to get the dog you want. Then, there's macro-evolution, which is breeding dogs to get a human after milllions of years. Okay.\nMicro-evolution is, obviously, possible because the genes of the dogs change to let it's grandchild be a different kind of dog. However, there's a limit to how much genes can change. After a while, the dog will be really different from his ancestors (chihuahuas and great danes) but can never turn into a non-dog. I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat-dog. It's just not possible. Think of it this way. If you take the word "Cat" and change one letter at a time, you can come up with "hat," "mat," and "pat." Can you ever come up with "orange?" No, orange doesn't have three letters.\n  The only way for evolution to be possible is if a lizard mates with a squirrel to produce a bird. And I don't think it's possible for that to happen, do you? Sure, donkeys and horses can mate to produce mules, but they're related (like dogs and wolves.)\n   If you ever see an owl-kangaroo, I'll take this back. For more answers about evolution, go to www.drdino.com.
330106
Darwins initial theory of evolution has some truth to it, the part of adaptation is essentially true.. the part of making something out of nothing and having it evolve is false .. only the Creator can do that.. as far at the earth being billions of years old.. that is also false... dinosaurs existed with man.. if you read Job it tells you that the giant animals were in existence and not all dinosaurs were giants.. there is a lot of information out there to research concerning your question.. the first book I would suggest is the Bible... it will essentially answer all of the above question.. if that doesn't satisfy you I would suggest checking in a Christian bookstore on evolution.. Darwin had some good ideas, but his predecessors ran with it in the wrong direction.
415097
Ok well, firstly evolution is not my religion and the sole purpose for my existence. Wouldn't be the end of the world if it's not true, though I may lose a lot of my love of nature.\n\nWell... fossils can show that there were creatures similar to creatures we have today (but not the same) that are extinct now. \n\nSkeletons of neanderthal and homo erectus species have been found also, showing that beings very similar to humans have existed and then become extinct. By seeing the brow ridge on these skulls, and the different shape (but without damage and cracking) it is plain to see that these were not skulls bashed in or damaged in any way. \n\nWe also share genes with many other animals and plants. \n\nWe can also see stars billions of light years away. If the planet was only approx 6000 yrs old the light would not have reached the earth yet.\n\nIf you put nutrients in water in a vacuum, amino acids begin to form (I do not know the exact primeval soup experiement, but according to scientists, considering how quickly the amino acids formed, cells could reasonably be believed to form given the millions of yrs this earth has existed.) \n\nAlso, look at our skeletons! Many animals are linked to one another in bone structure etc. Look at a horses legs now - the chestnuts (hardened lumps) used to be their toes but are of no use now, halfway up their legs! Though you may say that is micro-evolution, I disagree. If we had a 6-toed, 3-toed, 4-toed or even 2-toed horselike animal today, I think it would be considered a different species.\n\nHowever, in the end, no one will believe what you tell them to - it is a choice. Christians believed in geocentric astronomy years after copernicus proved our galaxy to be heliocentric. The Bible mentions holding the corners of the world and tossing off sinners and suchlike - if it is G-d's word, surely he would've made it clear that the world was round?\n\nHope you're having a good day, you're asking politely :)\n\nx
32347
I beg to differ with andyman_69. Other animals use tools. Other animals have languages. What is interesting is that so far, humans have not had much luck at deciphering their languages and have had more success at teaching them ours, either sign language or recently, to even use typewritten words displayed on a computer screen to communicate. \n\nOn top of this, there are many other behaviors that we share in common with our closest animal relatives. More than we would care to admit, I suspect. Then there is the remarkable genetic evidence that is slowly becoming more and more impressive. \n\nIt is all extremely interesting. What interests me more, is, what is consciousness? Do only humans have it? Or only a small number of other species?\n\nAnd if that is so, why? \n\nIf God did it, how? \n\nAnd I am not just referring to biblical references, but hard data and evidence that we can test in the laboratory.
275181
Sorry, this took longer than I thought it would.\n\nYou seem to be already convinced that science is favors evolution more than creation.  Modern science was invented by Christians.\n\nHere is some stuff about mitochondrial eve.  http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html\nSince the original DNA study was done, it was found that an error had been made and that the actual time of Eve's existence was only about 10,000 years ago.\n\nHuman foot prints chasing dinosaur footprints.  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm\nNow we know the real reason they are extinct - they were delicious.\n\nYou've probably heard of the tectonic plate theory (continental drift theory), but have you every heard of the Hydroplate Theory.  The latter does a much better job of explaining things in a more scientific manner with more geological evidence to back it up.  In other words, it supports the Bible story of a global flood.  See here: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=13091\n\nThat's all I have time for now.\n\nPS-You won't find ANY of the above in your science textbook.  Its called CENSORSHIP which is why you weren't told about the existence of all this other scientific evidence.