I'm looking for a scientific explanation. I'm serious about this. Was it evolution? I am just curious if there are any possible explanations.
176559
This is actually very easy to answer, based on evolution the egg had to come first. Evolution works like this: There are slight changes in the genetic information of the sex cells (i.e. eggs and sperm) of individuals that are passed on to the offspring of any two parents. These changes in the genetic makeup are called mutations. Mutations can either have: 1) A deleterious effect on the offspring (genetic disorders may arise, many times these are lethal); 2) sometimes these mutations may be advantageous, making an individual more fit than its neighbors (this is sometimes referred to as conferring an advantage); or 3) these mutations can have no effect, making no change from parent to progeny.\n\nIn the case of the chicken, it must have evolved from something else that became less fit than the chicken and eventually becoming extinct. The chicken became a chicken from this other organism through mutations that built up over time in subsequent generations. However, whatever the genetic makeup that finally became defined as a chicken, that individual was first conceived and developed in an egg before being hatched. The egg and sperm that fused to produce the chicken didn't bypass the period of gestation within an egg that had developed in the bird family millions of years before the chicken came along.\n\nSo the simple answer to this question is the egg came first -- unless you believe in fairy tales?
123773
First, you need to define evolution.  You're talking about micro evolution which has no problems with Christianity.  When you start getting into macro, stellar, cosmic and chemical evolution, we've got problems.\n\nIf the ebola virus evolved, it evolved from another virus.  That is micro evolution.  Macro evolution says that that process is evidence that a virus can turn into a dog over time.  This is where you're getting into religious faith and not science.  \n\nThere are hundereds of different breeds of dogs to include wolves and foxes, etc.  Micro evolution says that all those breeds of dogs came from a common ancestor...a dog.  Again, no problem with Christianity.\nMacro evolution will say that the dogs, cats, birds, snakes, plants, blah, blah, all came from a common ancestor.  That's ludicrous and severely contradicts the bible.\n\nNow, as far as your question about before the fall of man...\nGod told Adam that if they ate of the fruit, they would die.  We know that they didn't drop dead on the spot, so what did He mean?  He meant that they would change world events to bring death into the world.\n\nThe world event that possibly changed all of this was the flood.  When man knowingly was sinful (because of Adam), God had to destroy the world (death from the sin of Adam).  Before the flood, the earth had much different living conditions than we do today.  There was the protective canopy of water around the earth that made it paradise.  It increased the oxygen and air pressure to double, it blocked UV rays and had many other benefits.  This is how people were able to live to be 900 years old.\nIt's possible that viruses and other diseases started forming after that protective canopy was gone.  Add in man's industrial chemicals and we've got a recipe for disaster.\nThere was research done with poisonous snakes.  They put the snakes in a hyperbaric chamber and pumped the air pressure to double.  The snakes came out non-poisonous.  How was the world before the flood?  We can't know for sure, but some amazing scientific research has been done on this topic.\n\nAnother possibility is that many viruses were always there, but was just recently released because we went into the rain forest and started cutting down trees.  If it was locked in its environment before and we released it, then it didn't evolve, it was discovered.\n\nYou should check out www.drdino.com and download the seminar titled "The garden of Eden".  It will explain these things in much greater detail.
81822
The more I learn about evolution, the more it doesn't make sense. I am a very new Christian. If you told me a year ago that creation makes more sense than evolution, I would tell you that you were crazy. No transition fossils for any animals "evolving" into another animal have ever been found. I don't deny there is a lot of changes occurring in living things over the generations–it's called variation (also called micro-evolution). For example, there are chihuahuas and there are St. Bernards.  They all have a common ancestor–-and surprise–-it's a dog.  This is what Darwin observed.  The idea of survival of the fittest does not come to a logical conclusion when the animal turns into a different animal.  \n\nThe span of time since the earth “began” keeps getting longer and longer by evolutionists' measure.  Fifty years ago, it was in the millions of years.  Now it's billions.  This keeps growing to make it fit evolution.  Since no living person has ever seen evolution take place, and evolution has never left a record to prove it exists, it needs to have happened so SLOWLY that many generations of people (since recorded history began thousands of years ago) have never witnessed it.  The more evolutionists learn, the more they have to change their estimates... because evolution is not possible with their older estimates.  \n\nThe same amount of faith is needed to believe in evolution as creation.  However, evolutionist have an advantage because it is REQUIRED to be taught in school.  The alternative theory is not even allowed to be mentioned in school.  Schools are even getting in trouble these days by pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact.  People call evolution science, but science needs to be able to be observed and/or replicated.  Evolution can do neither of these things.  What other scientific experiment do you know that has no proof, no conclusive evidence, so many missing pieces, consistently proving itself wrong, but instead of ruling that it must be false, they change the input to make it work. If scientist did this with any other experiment, they would be laughed out of their jobs. There have been many evolution hoaxes created throughout the years so that there could be some “proof” of evolution.  Some of these were found out to be hoaxes decades ago, but are still found in science textbooks today.\n\nYes, creation has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in the Bible.  But evolution also has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in a textbook. Your choice (that is what free will is about), but I would just recommend that everyone FULLY examines both sides before concluding one is right.
222402
>>>> How did we evolve?\n\nThe same way everything evolved: changes in gene frequencies.\n\n>>>>>How have we become what we are?\n\nFrom what starting point? Bacteria? Lizards? Rats? Monkeys? Homo erectus?\n\n>>>>>What made us evolve into what we are now?\n\nNatural selection.\n\n>>>>>It can't just be climate change and surroundings.\n\nIt isn't. It was natural selection acted upon by environment.\n\n>>>>Are characteristics passed down?\n\n\nYes, they are.
672641
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
464704
Obviously by design. This phenomenon, our eyes, etc all shout design. But, some would like to credit  the Art of Evolution for all these things. Why Art and not Science?\n\nBecause Science is exact, art is imaginary. For further info click on my name and look at my postings why evolution is fake.
178639
That's the problem with the evolutionist's "theory" they say,"It was there and it exploded"No. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Have u heard of Intelligent design? Yea most of it is "religious" but see, the word "Creation" means the making from nothing" so u can easily say that God created the universe.It's easy to believe since no scientific evidence is needed.If the bang did come about, why do planets spin in opposite directions? Look in the conservation of angular momentum. I'm not trying to make u christian, but i'm glad u see a flaw in,these theories of the bang, no one was around at the time to know, so how could they be right? I'm glad u asked. My name is Tyler from Kearney, Ne E-mail me @ meatballofall@yahoo.com if u have more to ask or want to know more.
310692
There are plenty of theories of human existence. Mythology, the Bible, and the theory of evolution.  All of these have their own view on the creation of the world and life, and some kind of backup answer for any questions that may arise.  But only one has scientific proof(the basis of all theories and experiments)The Theory of Evolution.\n\nWhether or not human existence is the result of inbreeding between primates, who's to know.  There are inbreds everywhere.  But there is no proof, at-least in anything that I have read.  But if we thought about that, dont you think we would be a weird species.  Just a thought.\n\nThere is plenty of evidence that ET'S have been coming to earth for sometime.  But again no scientific proof.  And no scientific proof to suggest that life was created by ET'S.  Maybe we need to ask the Government about Area 51.\n\nWhat do I think.  I do believe in the Theory of Evolution and Jesus.  But there is a line you have draw between science and Christianity.  I also believe you cant test this, because there is evidence for some points in this theory. To try to talk about it now would take to long.\n\nYour question is deep and a good one at that, but there is so much more that can be talked about.  This is a very broad subject.\n\nHope this interests you.
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.
140999
It is thought that man came from ape like ancestors, not quite monkey's.  \n\nIt could take hundreds of thousands of years for macro evolution to occur.  Wait around that long, and i guarantee there will be NEW species.  So it is still happening.\n\nThe fossil record is not complete because fossils are hard to come by, not everything fossilises despite contrary belief.  In fact it's amazing we have as much info as we do.\n\nHow on earth does it take less belief to believe in a god, there is no evidence whatsoever for this!  At least evolution has enough evidence to fill several hundred warehouses, what do you have, testimony.. Yeah right, thanks, i'll keep to evidence, not faith to inform my decisions about the world around me.
43872
I am not sure how it all came to be as it is.  I wonder sometimes if perhaps we created ourselves.  I mean, through reincarnation, we have the opportunity to become better and better,and perhaps we have more will and power than people realize to become more advanced.  I know, that sounds hair-brained, but it is just a wild idea I had.\n\nI think it is possible that God guides the evolution process, causing the mutations that will become beneficial, or survival advantages.\n\nI think there is a whole lot more to evolution than we realize.  I think there is something marvelous about it and random mutations do not fully explain it to me.  I think there must be some mechanism which actually somehow accelerates mutations when the need for a change is present.  Whether that mechanism was put there by God or not, who could really say?\n\nAs the Rig Veda says, "who really knows, who can say, from whence it came?  Maybe God knows, and maybe even he does not."
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.
508987
These are two good reasons for believing in evolution instead of these silly notions. We come from earlier life, through the familiar process of selection, reproduction, and variation. That earlier life comes from even earlier life. At some point in the distant past there was some primitive first life. It came from inorganic matter. \n\nWhere that matter came from is not clear, but we're making progress on understanding that. The leading contender, I believe, is that it DID simply pop into existence. I think that someday we may even understand how that is possible, but I'm confident that no-one today understands it.
91484
Since the first guy did not even bother to read your question...\n\nYea, you've hit one of the big mysteries in Science - the early atmosphere. Lots of people are doing research in this area.  I just read a great book that talks about it: "Genesis: The Scientific Qest for the origins of life." Great book - check it out.
658849
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
271292
>>>If life was not created by an intelligent, self-aware,\n>>> designer, where did evolution get intelligence and self \n>>>awareness to "give" us?\n\n\nIt got it from a series of mutations and processes selecting for increased intelligence. Intelligence is simply the result of ever increasing ability to process and respond to sensory information. It is no harder to ‘get’ than size. \n\nYou might just as well ask if all organisms evolved from microscopic bacteria, where did evolution get size to give to whales. The difference between whales and bacteria in terms of size is one of degree, not kind. And in exactly the same the difference between a human and a bacterium WRT intelligence is one of degree, not kind.\n\n\n\n>>>>There appear to be three levels of life, plants (having\n>>>> no awareness), animals (having sensory perception), and \n>>>> humans(perceiving self and contemplating all things). \n\nThat quite obviously isn’t true. Anyone who has lived outside a city knows that plants perceive and respond to the passing of the seasons and the timing of the rains.\n\nOnce again I have to stress that the difference between plant intelligence and human intelligence is one of degree, not of kind. It is not the case that plants have one type of intelligence and humans have another. Plants simply have much less intelligence than humans\n\n>>>>Neoteny… How can anything retain something which it has\n>>>> not received? How can anything be received from a\n>>>> source that does not have *that* thing?\n\nI think you need to spend at leats one hour studying this subject before criticising. All animals receive the genetic instructions for their juvenile from their parents.\n\nIt is amazing that someone in the 21st century could actually believe that God personally builds young animals and that the form of a kitten has no genetic basis whatsoever.
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.