Question on Evolution?
464144
I wonder the same thing. But I believe God created the world. I don't believe in evolution. It just doesn't make sense!
113213
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
361147
Micro evolution has been proven.  It is evidenced in history and observable in life.  That doesns't contradict the Bible or interfere in my beliefs in any way.\n\nMy problem with evolution is that:\n\nSomething cannot come from nothing.  It is against the laws of our universe for something to come from nothing.  Thus Someone (outside our universe) had to create it.\n\nMutations are degenerative.  That's why no one thinks it's a compliment to be called a mutant.  Diseases are mutations.  Where are all the positive mutations needed for macro evolution to be true?\n\nIn order for evolution to be true, original life would have to have been self-supporting and we have become more and more weak and dependent ever since.  If original life sustained itself on nothing, and we are growing more and more superior, why can't we sustain ourselves on nothing?  Why must we eat and have clothing and shelter?  We consume resources.  What resources did original life have?  How were they not depleted?  \n\nWhere do morality, intellect, and love come from?  Are they really suited to survival of the fittest?  \n\nIf the universe is orderly and designed by accident, why aren't all accidents orderly and designed?  How could the balance of our ecosystem just happen?  \n\nIf evolution crossed the line of species, how did that work?  If a man was born to an ape, what did he mate with?  If another ape, wouldn't their offspring have been sterile?  That would then be the end of mankind.  Why don't apes still have human babies today?  \n\nI believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.  He created everything in an order that supported life.  Yes, things change over time, but they don't cross the line of species without negative consequences.
1037582
Not all people evolved, as can be seen by some of the questions and answers here.\n\n(Did you really want a sensible answer or would a banana do?)
1014083
My God, I'm finally beginning to see the truth.  You have convinced me, despite all of the scientific evidence available and common sense, that evolutionists do indeed have it all wrong.\n\nWe have NOT evolved from apes.\n\nIn fact, based on the number of people who profess to believing in the exact wording the Bible gives for Creation, I now know without a shadow of a doubt that ......\n\n\n WE ARE STILL APES!\n\nI accept the invitation.  What can I bring?  I know of a great place to get apples.
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
866041
I think some of the answers confirm your argument. There seems to be ignorance of the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. That evolutionary change in species occurs is definitely not in question-there is no doubt whatsoever based on the extensive fossil record and physiological similarities between species-so those who make a blanket statement about evolution not being a fact are talking rubbish. Only the theory-the mechanisms involved are subject to any conjecture although there is no competing theory to challenge natural selection so that is accepted as fact by 99% of biologists. Creationism has nothing to contribute to science. It can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
203026
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.
550523
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.
653816
Evolution is a theory.
765632
There will be some ignorant evolutionists here that will give you crap answers about this true statement, keep it up brother. \n\nCreationist 10 - 0 Evolutionists
1011831
A good place to start is the talk origins site (http://www.talkorigins.org/ ) which puts together a lot of the stuff that originally appeared in the talk origins usenet group.  Most of it is focused on exploring the creationist/evolution controversy, and sometimes takes up a defensive stance when none is required, but generally gives a good overview and explanation of many central questions in evolution.\n\nThe site for the PBS television series 'Evolution' (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ ) is also a very good site.  The related web activities for each episode's page give incredibly good basic information, and the Teacher's Guide section could easily form the backbone of an entire High School level course on evolution (not that any High School actually offers such a course).\n\nIf you can get a hold of the Evolution series itself, it also provides some excellent explanations of many of the concepts.  It may be available through your local library.\n\nAnd the University of Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website is also an excellent resource (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ ).  \n\nThose three sites should keep you busy for the next few months.\n\nGood luck!
656214
I would like to see a computer program that simulates evolution. It can mutate anything it wants a million times a second. Bring it on baby, or shut up until you do. (not speaking to you Tom but to evolutionists who can't reproduce evolution even in a computer without cheating).
364515
If you are going to comment about evolution, at least do yourself the favor of actually learning what it is.\n\nHumans did not evolve from the species of apes and monkeys that you see today.  Instead, all current primates (including humans) evolved from a common ancestor.  That was an "ape" that lived thousands of years ago, but it didn't look like the monkeys and gorillas you see today.\n\nGo to a museum, read a science book, or watch the Discovery channel sometime.  They all show you how humans evolved.\n\nIt doesn't take faith to believe in evolution.  It just takes the ability to open your eyes and look at the evidence.
577976
Whether or not someone "believes" in evolution dosn't change the fact of it.\n\nAging most likely isn't a product of evolution. Living takes energy, and reproduction takes even more. The biological makeup of any organism can only tolerate just so much stress and normal wear and tear. After awhile, the organism begins to undergo chemical and organic breakdown. The differences in life spans between species are most likely the result of the sort of energy expenditures for which the particular species in question were programed for.
580432
The problem that creations have with evolution is that they think of evolution as a ladder. You need to view it as a tree, each branch as smaller branches that are similar.\nFor example dogs and wolves are very similar. \nLions, tigers, and house cats are similar.\nall animals come from a single organism.\n\nDidn't you learn this in biology class???
724158
Er... the theory of evoltion?  It's just a theory though.  Lots of loop holes.  :)