Question for people believing in Evolution?
930216
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.\n\nThere may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field.  I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design.  Such evidence as:\n\nThe progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.\nMicrobial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA\nComplex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA\nFirst multicellular animals 670 MYA\nShell-bearing animals 540 MYA\nVertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA\nAmphibians 350 MYA\nReptiles 310 MYA\nMammals 200 MYA\nNonhuman primates 60 MYA\nEarliest apes 25 MYA\nAustralopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA\nModern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA\nOne can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.  Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly.  Why?  Because they don't want accurate results.  Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.\n\nStructural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all. \n\nThe distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.\n\nSimilarities During Development \nEmbryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, fo
118943
>>>>Is God real or did evolution acualy happen?\n\nWe can’t know whether God is real or not. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God, the only evidence exists inside the minds of people. Since gods (and there are more than one) are supernatural and lack any objective evidence they fall outside the scope of science.\n\nDid evolution actually happen? Yes, that’s one thing that all the evidence agrees on.\n>>>>>I seen a story on the news and it was staying how religion in school was not taught because of the evolution therory.\n\nNo, you didn’t. You misunderstood the story on the news.  \n\nReligion is not taught in public schools because the US Constitution says that it can not be taught there. It violates the separation clause. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has everything to do with that the law quite clearly states.\n\nWhat the story would have actually said was that some attempts to teach religious beliefs as an alternative to evolution are still illegal and unconstitutional because it is still the teaching of religious beliefs.
251395
Well, if you really want an answer..\n\nYou can see by the answers of the creationists who responded that they will not believe in evolution, no matter HOW MUCH evidence is in front of them.  It has been my experience that they care little for the truth and only for maintaining what they already believe.\n\nKen Miller wrote an EXCELLENT book on this called "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."\n\nMiller does a great job of answering your question but the short version may go like this:\n\nCreationists FALSELY believe that if evolution is true, then their religion is necessarily false.\n\nAs long as they continue to decieve themselves with that, no amount of evidence will ever convince them and they will continue to expound that the sun revolves around the Earth.\n\nI should note here that Miller is a Christian who FULLY belives in his religion and is a celluar biologist who FULLY understands evolution.\n\nMy last thought is from comedian Lewis Black: He says he won't even debate evolution's detractors because "we've got the fossils. We win."\n\nWell put, Mr Black but there is far more to rely on than just fossils.
868498
I completely agree with you. I've done my research and evolution in reality has not been proven. It is the media that propagates the myth of evolution, even brainwashing children with pictures of monkey-men in textbooks to do it. They've even go so far as to make whole skeletal structures of out of small bone fragments in order to provide "physical proof" of evolution, like with "Piltdown Man", a fraud  that was not discovered as a fraud until 40 years after it was made. It's a big lie, one of the greatest frauds in history. Even Darwin said, "If evolution has occurred, where are the missing links?"\nBelief in God and science is completely compatible. In fact, the Bible has a lot of scientific foreknowledge that "scientists" didn't even discover until centuries later, even just in the last century when it was right in front of them all along.\nThe Bible says it was God who made everything, and that it was God who established laws that hold everything in its place. Hence to see science for what it really is is to see the fingerprint of God.
289312
>A lot of people,including myself and a lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.\n\n>Science itself refutes Darwinism.\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
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.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
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.
653816
Evolution is a theory.
13278
Personaly, I do not fully believe in Darwin's theory. I think God meant to make us all special in our own way.\n\nPS) Happy New Year and good luck!!!
113540
I also feel that both theories can exist together.  Evolution does NOT answer where and how life began, and where and how our humanity began.  Yet, the physical evidence of evolution is undeniable.  \n\nI'm agnostic, but feel that there is something more than chance that led to our existence.
859494
how can you believe in evolution when there is no proof?
268444
I beleive in Adam and eve.\nThe only explanation why we are here.\n\nEvolution.- To some extent.\n   I dont beleive humans evolved from apes\n   But I do believe in Survival of the fittest.\n   Giraffes with short necks couldnt survive cause they couldnt reach the tall tress after the ground was barren................ something like that.\n\n  Evolving from apes does not make sense- why did they stop evolving if they evolved before.\n   Why aare there no intermediates between apes and human.\n\nIf God created animals, and earth, and stars and suns, than he must have created humans too.
1164641
By God of course.  Every other belief is just a theory withouth any proof.  The proof that we were created by God is not only the Bible but everything around us.  It makes no sense to believe in evolution, because why has evolution taken a break for a very long time? Huh!  Charles Darwin was a scumbag, I bet he got hit with that evolutionary rock multiple times.
22583
Absolute proof?  No, just as there isn't absolute proof for evolution.  There are, however, a great number of evidences that would indicate that there is a God.  Taken together, you can then infer it, but that is where faith comes in.  Others have mentioned some of the evidences, but whether or not you accept that as indicating that God is real is up to you.  Others see them and interpret them differently.\n\nWhatever you come to believe, it's going to require some faith.  Some positions require more faith than others do.
1093141
I believe in what you believe it seems. I don't think the evolutionary theory is an excuse though. Satan had to do something to give non-believers a way to think without the Lord in their life.Now the monkey thing may be wierd or stupid,but if you didn't believe in the Lord, what would you believe to prove He doesn't exist?
545466
probably not, there's no such thing as evolution!\nthough that is a funny thing to think about!