I am a Biologist; please tell me what these 'holes' are. Evolution is universally accepted, what are the holes of which you speak?
203312
My dads a christian minister, and he believes in evolution - he says that the creation story in the bible is like a parable, but in acutal fact it took much much longer than 7 days to create everything, and evolution is part of god's plan - it's how he created everything.  He says that evolution cannot be agrued with, as there are no holes in the 'theory' - it is a fact, not a theory,  so the only sensible way to look at the creation story is as a parable.
647309
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
577470
Well, I'm a Christian biologist, and I know many others who are.  I accept that evolution occured, but I do think it was necessary for God to direct it.  There are too many irreducibly complex systems at the cellular level, and too many astronomically unlikely coincidences that would have had to take place, if natural selection were completely responsible for the phenomenon.  Even a time span of billions of years is just not enough to account for it, statistically speaking.  That's my professional opinion, and I'm far from the only one who thinks so.
465799
Biogenesis is the fact that life only arises from life. \n\nId love to see what the evolutionists make of this. And I dont wanna see a bunch of links in the place of a proper answer too..
151034
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
443733
think about the eye.  it's no good if all you have is an eyeball, yet lack an optic nerve to transmit the light as an electric signal, or an occipital cortex to interpret the electric pulses back into a picture.\n\nso how could the eye have evolved?  suppose some primordial worm starts getting two black dots on its head that will eventually turn into eyes.  suppose they eventually turn into eyes.  he still can't see.  this is not a viable mutation as it has no possible survival value or advantage over the other plain ol' worms.  an eye is no good unless every other part of the visual system is already intact.\n\nso a gradual evolving a pair of eyes won't work, since it will hinder the creature's survival before it will actually help it out.  the only way natural selection favours evolutionary andvancements is through ''hopeful monsters.'' a lizard hatching a bird, a worm with no eyes giving rise to one with eyes in a single generation.\n\nand that's another thing.  what if a lizard tried to grow longer and longer scales in hopes that they'd one day become feathers?  well, there comes a point where this lizard has half feather/scales, on some rather cumbersome, yet extremely fragile wing-like ''hands,'' which it can no longer use for running from predators, yet, it still cannot fly.  natural selection would quickly weed out such a transitional creature.\n\nand that's another thing...where are all these transitional fossils that had to be here?  since evolution took place over millions and millions of years, right?  (the earth's age is actually closer to what the bible says, anyway, as the speed of light is slowing down, and used to be much much faster in the past, according to modern quantum physics and other considerations, [see sources] so radioactive decay used to be much faster in the past, making radio-carbon dating yeild ages far too old)....there actually wasn't even enough time for things to evolve.  the only way evolution could've happened was by hopeful monsters...\n\nwhat about the peppered moth, mike?  what about it?  there's a variation in the species.  what about red heads and brunettes? ;-)  okay, what about the tiny 18 inch tall horses in fossil records?  well, modern, wild brown horses can be selectively bred to get tiny little horses like that.  yes, it takes about 80 years, but it can be done.  (evolutionists tend to call this ''micro-evolution'' just to get a foothold ;-)  )  what's more, regular house cats have been successfully bred with lions to produce ''medium sized'' cats.  this only shows that there is a wide variance in the species, but it's still one kind.  evolution states that one species will change so much over a period of time that it cannot breed with other species that have branched off in different directions.
53295
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \nIn _anagenetic_ (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. \nOur direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
418604
your question was too long so I didn't bother reading it...\n\nAs for the subject you were talking about, evolution is just as good a theory as any other THEORY!
111433
you are right.  evolution is a statistical imposibility\n\nthe odds of even one species evolving like the bat for instance.  with allits specialized functions and abilities....   its like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747.  and thats just one species.  also i like it when you confront athiests and agnostics with hard fact PROOVING evolution CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED.  like this.\n\nthe earths rotation is slowing.  this is a measured, proven, scientific, fact.  If you were to rewind time adding as you go back the ammount of speed lost. you would find that as little as 1 mil years ago. the earth would be spinning so fast that the centripital force would cause everything to be flung off into space.  \n\nthats just one way and there are many other ways to disprove evolution.  oddly enough whenever you tell these things to an evolutionist and or athiest/agnostic.  they just kind of stand there with a not so bright look on thier face...
134242
There are different schools of thought on evolution.  Development of one species into a completely different species (macroevolution in a nutshell) is a ridiculous theory, in my opinion.  AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS STILL A THEORY, NOT FACT!  I hate it that people try to pull off this old theory as fact.\nBut I totally believe in gradual adaptations within a species.  That's microevolution (in a nutshell).
121049
Adaptation? Evolution?
404962
How come no real scientist have ever studied evolution. They are so full of holes and they are their worst enemy. We found the missing link and her name is Lucy she was here 35000 years ago, then they figure out that we couldn't evolve that fast so they change it to 1.2 million years ago and they figure out it was just a monkey.\n\nPaleontologist have discovered the first fish 570 million years ago and traced it for 100 million years as it grew fins, why can't they figure out anything about what happened 100 thousand years ago.\n\nI just wish they would do some real science because they are making science look bad, and if there is nothing there move on.
257630
Just remember, evolution is an untested, unproven theory.  In fact, it cannot be tested or proven.  If one looks at the scientific method and what constitutes a theory, evolution barely qualifies, if at all.
582315
Errr, not really.\n\nYou must also understand that evolution in no way says anything about the origins of life.  That's a whole other subject ;).
336861
You knowledge of English appears to be even worse than your knowledge of science, which is depressing.\n\nLook, 'fitness' in evolutionary theory refers to fitness to reproduce. Those who are fit are those who can produce offspring, NOT those who evolve.\n\nSo of course all multicellular organisms eventually die. That is the whole point. Their offspring then inherit their niche. And because fitness is defined by the number of offspring produced the fittest organisms inherit the larger share.\n\nI hope this clears up a small part of your ignorance.
659735
Evolution is infinite.
237044
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.