Has any ancient writings or drawings been found relating stories of the process of evolution?
491269
no, i think it happened to fast for any one to see it happen. o no waite, it happened over such a long period that no one realized it was happening and thay forgot to write about it. except when it happened to fast, than thay also forgot to write it down.
868970
Here's one link.  There are others just type in children's Bible stories on the search engine.\nhttp://www.jesusanswers.com/christian/stories/creation.htm
346820
No. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp:/
824187
Nope.  \n\nSecularists especially, use these "Didn't the (whatever Bible story) get copied from (whatever extra-biblical source)?"  all the time.  These have been discredited over and over again, yet they keep coming back.\n\nWhile it is true that there are similar stories in various other ancient texts, they are also very dissimilar.  You can look to the Amarna Letters, Babylonian Theodicy, Elba Tablets, Hammurabi's Code, Ishtar's Descent, Ludlul Bel Nemedi, Mari Tablets, and innumerable others, and find stories that are similar to the Bible's.  That hardly allows for them to be sources.\n\nKeep in mind also, when the Flood occurred, it was world-wide, and every ancient civilization recorded it.  These are also descendants of Noah, who abandoned YHWH as God, and followed idols instead.  The veracity of the story remains.  You can look to other stories in the same vein.
355107
Well, there IS a good explanation. The story about creation is a way how simple people explained stuff to themselves. \nYou see, if you read the creation theory, you'll see the things appeared in the similar order than they actually did. \nAt first, there was "light", which of course means the glowing mass of gasses and molten metals in the emptiness of space. When it cooled down and the water condensed, they became earth and water. \nLater on, then plants appeared, after them the animals and as the last one, humans, which are only about thirty thousand years old. \n\nIf you try to represent this to simple people, as the peoples of near east 2000 years ago no doubt were, you'll have trouble making them understand what 65 million years is and how come a dinosaur would evolve from an one-cell creature. So you make up a god and tell them the story happened in 7 days and they go away happy with their own understanding of the process. \n\nIt's basically the same, just VERY simple. \n\nWhat I don't understand, however, is HOW the hell nowadays, in the era of computers and high technology, some EQUALLY simple people can exist. \nWell, for THEM, the theory of evolution CERTAINLY doesn't exist, their mentality remained at the same point of functioning as it was 2000 or even 5000 years ago, I'm afraid.
724158
Er... the theory of evoltion?  It's just a theory though.  Lots of loop holes.  :)
584737
If you do your research you will see that the concept of time in mens eyes compared to Gods eyes are probably two very different things!\nwe are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!\n\nBut a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.\n\nIs that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.\n\nBut these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.\n\nThis is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?\n\nPermanence of Species\n\nBiologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.\n\nMuch emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same
926725
There is considerable evidence -- archaeological, biological, geological, astronomical, cosmological, paleontological -- that shows the biblical account of creation is wrong.\n\nThere is *no* evidence in any scientific discipline that shows the biblical account of creation is correct.\n\nYour point above is just one of many that show how biblical myths came from other cultures -- there are also mythical stories of a garden of "eden", a great flood and a man who built a boat to ride it out, and many others that existed in other cultures (and were written down) in Mesopotamia that pre-date the hebrew stories by centuries or even millenia.  Thinking people, even religious scholars, understand and accept that the biblical stories are just myths and don't ascribe any absolute truth to them, or even attribute them to the hebrews.  Non-thinking people, well, don't think, research, understand -- they just spout dogma.
107574
You could be right. The Laguna Indian tribe proposed the same idea in their creation story:\n\n"Ts'its'tsi'nako, Thought-Woman, is sitting in her room\nand whatever She thinks about appears.\nShe thought of her sisters, Naotsete and Uretsete,\nand together they created the universe, \nthis world and the four worlds below.\nThought-Woman, the spider, named things\nand as she named them they appeared.\nShe is sitting in her room thinking of a story now.\nI am telling you the story she is thinking".\n\nThought-Woman, or Thinking Woman dictating the world is a pretty common theme among southwestern Indian tribes. If you're intersted also check out the Acoma and Keres creation myths.
671450
Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \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! \nBy 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!!!!
385804
There is numerous concrete fossil evidence of the lineage leading from apes to man, from the fossils of Australopithecus afarenesis, A. africanus, and other Australopithecines which do not appear to be in the line leading to humans, to the early Homo species, such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus, to the archaic Homo sapiens specimens to anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens fossils.\n\nPiltdown man was never accepted as valid by most paleontologists, even at the time.  It was popular with a few British archaeologists, because it was found in England, but it was shown to be a hoax consisting of an orang-utan jaw and a human skull inexpertly modified with a file by paleontologists (the very people whom creationists incorrectly try to blaim for the hoax).\n\nNebraska man was also shown to be a pig's tooth by experienced anatomists and paleontologists, rather than the untrained reporters and doctors who forwarded the claim.\n\nOta Benga was a sad case of racism expounded by an explorer a circus promoter and the insanely racist director of the Bronx zoo.  It had nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory, any more than the Branch Davidians in Waco had anything to do with the bible and Christianity.\n\nNone of these cases disproves any of the scientific tenets or proof of evolutionary theory.
331313
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.
357308
Charles Darwin explored exactly that when he wrote about his Theory of Evolution. Read his works!
827000
You should read John Campbell's article "Rhetorical Analysis of Darwin's Origin". \n\nIts kind of what's been happening in scientific thought since the beginning of science. Theories aren't always necessary accepted for the weight of the scientific evidence alone. Sociopolitical and religious ideologies play a great role in the receptivity of ideas. I recently wrote a paper on the influence of Malthusian population thoeries and the Ideas of Progress influencing Darwin along with a misinterpretion of Newton's mechanistic philosophies that contribued to the accptance of Darwin's theory. \n\nRead also Michael Ruse's "Darwin and Design" or Peter Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea" both talk about the great deal of rhetoric that went into the formulation of the theory. \n\nWhere one model, Mendel's model was able to make predictions, another model, which was purely theoretical (common descent still unproven) was accepted b/c it justified the Victorian's ideas regarding progress and the advancement of humankind, it also justified the population struggled described by Thomas Malthus. \n\nIt was similar to what happened with Johannes Kepler who in trying to convince the established scientific community of elliptical orbits and non uniform circular motion and his defense of Copernicus' heliocentrism, was largely ignored despite the fact his model was able to make accurate predictions, the same goes with the ancient Babylonians whose astronomy was able to make far better predictions than later Greek astronomy. The reasons for the rejection were mainly a result of the biases held by the established scientific community. It doesn't matter how truthful a particular theory may be or its ability to make accurate predictions, its about extrascientific factors and biases that allow for theories to be accepted or rejected. \n\nAnd a reply to the last part of the question, though Darwin may be accused of being the "god" of the atheists he at best was a "muddled theist" according to a letter Darwin wrote to J. Hooker regarding his theological stance. \n\nA good thorough read of primary sources is a good place to start when trying to understand the history of science. \n\n--my two cents :)
859201
It seems to be a toss up between ancient Hindu scripture or some of the earliest Egyptian writings like the book of the dead.\n\nThe Hindu stuff is fascinating. It sounds like the same things that the quantum physics guys are saying. Makes you wonder how the Hindus knew this stuff 4000 years ago.\n\nLove and blessings Don
773338
Post Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.\n\nDarwin's theory of evolution was a landmark in science, and hence is used as a time-line in referring to advances in similar areas.\n\nAs a similar reference for comparison\n\n"The computer is the greatest labour saving device in the post industrial era"\n\nThe industrial era is when labour saving machines began to proliferate - steam driven engines powering weaving machines etc.\n\nThe statement is saying since we have had labour saving devices the computer has saved more labour than any other machine.\n\nThe finding of the "missing link" would be the greatest discovery in the post Darwinian era.\n\nMeans:\n\nThe finding of the missing link would be the greatest boon to evolutionary science since Darwins theory of evolution.
75898
I found a bunch of stuff for you: creationist, Big Band, myths all around the world... enjoy and good luck!