Question about Darwinian science?
706964
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
8356
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
1048996
Hey Bud, have you ever taken a class in evolution?\n\n"You're logic is flawed. There is plenty of evidence to show small adaptations within a species. These small variations enable animals to adapt to their environments.\n\nBut to go from that to changes from one species to another is quite a blind leap of faith and poor science as well. " Poor science according to who?\n\nHow many small variations does it take to turn one species into another?  A few small genetic variations make slight changes in organisms.... a few more make more changes... a few more make even more changes, and eventually enough of these little changes of added up so that the 2 groups of organisms are no longer able to interbreed. Thus, a new species - evolution at work.\n\nPoor science is when people who have not studied evolution try to disprove it. You come up with some pretty wacky ideas. Evolution is not something that animals do on purpose to improve. There is no plan, purpose, or goal to evolution. An animal that adapts to his environment (after he is already born) like your example is NOT evolution. Evolution affects populations, not individuals, and it does not 'occur' after an organism is born. Evolution only occurs when the gene frequency in the population is changed, through natural selection, random mutation, drift, etc.
260696
good lord, the level of the ignorance here is amazing!  please, see gs saint's answer, people.\n\n-man did not evolve directly from monkeys, he evolved from apes\n\n-there are still apes around because not all apes evolved into humans, only those in a certain locale did.  the environment man lived in was diffferent from the environment of the apes, spurring him to evolve in a different manner than chimps or bonobos.\n\nTurkishGamer13: it is not a flaw in the theory of evolution.  the coexistance of humans and other primates is fully supported by evolutionary theory, and is what would be expected if eveolution were true.  Umm, just about every characteristic of organisms today started out as a mutation.  Many mutations are harmful, because it is not likely that a random change in a being is going to be beneficial.  Some are though.  I have no wisdom teeth, and my dentist says i never will.  this is a mutation which benefits me.\n\nKajaK: science is moving away from evolution? LOL, read a book on the subject. there are controversies among biologists about the details of evolutionary theory, such as whether evolution occurs gradually at a steady rate or quickly in rapid bursts.  but these controversies do not affect the strength of the theory itself.  Evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories - it is independently confirmed by all different branches of science: chemistry, biology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, ecology, etc.\n\namrmusicqueen: yes, the thousands of scientists over the past 100+ years, working with the most advanced technology, and who have devoted their entire lives to research, study, and experimentation in the issues of biology are ignorant about their subject.  Thousands of PhD's who have each spent decades studying the theory of evolution, trying to find flaws (if a scientist was able to disprove evolution, he wuold be one of the most famous scientists ever, so there is a lot of incentive for scientists to over turn previously established theory) are ignorant about the subject.  But a girl who has never studied the subject (this is a justified assumption, because if you had, you would not be so quick to make hasty generalizations) is qualified to pronounce evolution as "not-cutting it."  LMFAO.
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
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.
1134801
Relationship to other primates had been suspected for years before Darwin   (1840's)-- simple observation.  Now with the deciphering of the geome for both chimps, and humans, relationship has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are all so similar even back to fish ---a central body with 5 protrusions -- head and 4 limbs.  I don't know it all, lady, but taught science and math for years, read Discover Magazine, Scientific American, and watch the Science channel.   Fascinating.... Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact, a lovely fact.  Our medical research on rats, dogs, and other critters would be worthless if evolution were not..   Helpful?  The question is toooo complicated to fully explain.  But you can start by reading scientific journals....   Good luck  Life is a life-long learning process.....  and god has nothing to do with it.  Critters survived, and evolved.  If a gene were detrimental, the critter carrying it didn't live long enough to procreate.  It the mutated gene was beneficial, it aided in that critter to live long enough to reproduce.  Lots of evolution is even occuring today.  Google things like Darwin's Finches, pigmy elephants, and of course dinasaurs.  \n\nOne quick interesting thing about moths in England to illustrate evolution:  In the early 1600's, before the Industrial Revolution began and coal producing smoke was a fact of life, a particular moth was mostly white, and blended into the tree bark on which it laid its eggs. The tree bark was white. Occasionally a grey-black one was hatched, but never lived very long -- birds got it.  As the Industrial Revolution took off in England, producing black soot, that black soot began to cover the trees' bark.  In less than 150 years, the white variety was gone, and there existed only the darker mutant.  Beginning in 1950 when England passed anti air pollution laws, those trees began loosing the soot off of the tree bark.  Yup, you guessed it..... the white variant is now dominant........ evolution in action  ,,,,,Helpful????
599194
charles darwin proposed theory of natural selected or DARWININISM.It states:\n1.Despite having enormous potential of fertility, the population size of any kind of organism remains within a limit.\n2.It is due to the struggle between members of same species and different species for food, space and mate.\n3.The struggle eliminates the unfit individual.(survival of the fittest).\n4.These favourable changes when accumulated for a long time lead to origin of new species.\n\nHope it helped
861286
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, in a nutshell:\n\nThere are three observations about life\n1) Variation: Individuals of a species are not all identical.  \n2) Competition: More individuals are born than can possibly survive to reproduce.  \n3) Inheritance: Individuals pass on traits to their offspring.  \nGiven these three things, those individuals in a species that have traits that help them survive better and produce more offspring, will pass those very traits on to those offspring.  So in this way, beneficial traits become more frequent a population, and produce an overall change in the species over time.  \n\nThat's it.\n\nAs for the creation of new species:  If two subpopulations of a species get separated for long enough, then they will change in separate directions, and will eventually lose the ability to interbreed, resulting in (now) two separate species that will continue to change (evolve) in different directions.\n\nThe catchphrase "survival of the fittest" summarizes this idea ... but use it with caution.  It's not just about "surviving" but "surviving to reproduce."  For example, a peacock's tail doesn't really help him "survive" better ... in fact it probably makes him an easier prey for predators ... but it does attract the ladies.  So it makes those individuals with the flashiest tail more "fit" then their homelier cousins.\n\n-------------- A warning about 'tiffany g's answer ---------------\n\nBe careful with answers like 'tiffany g' who copy-paste web pages instead of giving you a link to them, and without giving you the source, so you can check it out.  She is copying from the web-site allaboutscience.org, a thinly disguised Christian/Creationist site.  \n\nMy objection is not with people presenting the Creationist side ... but rather the attempt to hide that fact.  For example, it is deliberately misleading for a site to call itself "allaboutscience.org" when it does not address science topics in general, but only topics like the Big Bang, Evolution, and evidence for the existence of Jesus.  (Watch out for "allaboutphilosophy.org" as well.)\n\nAs a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty, the citation/page finishes with Darwin's famous quote about the eye ... famous because it is always quoted out of context and omits Darwin's very next sentence.  Darwin did indeed write that the evolution of the eye "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."  (Note the word "seems".)  But then Darwin continues ... "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."  (See second source, Darwin, Ch. 6.)\n\nIn other words, Darwin immediately refutes the "irreducible complexity" argument, by pointing out that all we need to do is show that the eye can come about through small, incremental changes that each confers a small advantage, no matter how small.  Every single case of "irreducible complexity" yet offered by Creationists has always been shown (usually quite easily) to be fully "reducible."\n\nCreationists love to quote out-of-context from Darwin's Chapter 6, because this is the chapter where Darwin considers possible objections or "difficulties" with the theory, and then refutes them. The Creationists love to quote Darwin's own-words description of the "difficulty", but then omit his
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:/
298956
No. Darwin figured out many of the basics, but the theory today is much more sophisticated than Darwin ever imagined. This is why we now have the "modern synthesis". Darwin had a different, and largely incorrect, idea of how inheritance worked, and never imagined the complexities inherent in modern biochemistry. The fundamental idea was Darwin's, but it has changed so much that we could not rightly say that the modern theory of evolution is what Darwin had in mind.\n\nIncidentally, sun_of_samsa claimed "this ultimately is what caused him to change his theory later in life, however he did not "revoke it on his deathbed" as many creationists claim." This is patently false; Charles Darwin died in 1882, 18 years before Mendel's work was to be rediscovered. Further, I know of no evidence that Darwin changed his theory, as he had no access to any of the evidence which would later require modifications to his theory. Perhaps there is some, though, in his personal letters; unlike his books, I have not read all of his personal correspondence.\n\nFurther, leonkallai's post is patently ridiculous, and demonstrates a near-complete ignorance of the last two (or more) centuries of biology, physics, and geology.
350652
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
415046
According to Darwin, it's due to the accumulation of random point mutations in the genetic code of a primitive ancestor, one that's related to all the great apes. As these mutations accumulated, some individuals were removed from the gene pool (by the death or non-reproductive status of the mutant organism), others showed no change and therefore didn't compete for resources in any improved manner, and lastly, some showed mutations that were beneficial and allowed that individual to reproduce more efficiently (either by more efficient energy usage or mating habits, etc., whatever would give that individual and advantage over it's peers).\n\nThere are other more esoteric theories on evolution/development that may or may not contribute to this process, but Darwin's Theory is the universally accepted one.
499343
Evolution.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
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.
999019
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.\nYet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This \n"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.\n\n\n(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)\n\nAlthough this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions. \nDarwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:\n1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth. \n2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all. \n3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.\n\nThe power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.\nIn this section, I will examine these three basic points in general outlines:\n\n\nThe First Insurmountable Step: \n(The Origin of Life)\n\nThe theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?\nSince the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inan
204741
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