Evolution has no goal. Do you agree?
966405
A goal is something that must be constructed or developed though a  thought process. Evolution does not have the ability to think.
1077534
No, because unlike those other things evolution is a myth.\n\nThe question I have is will the scientific community which embraces evolution be like the "scientific community" which embraced a flat world with four corners and the "scientific community" which embraced a earth centric universe. Remember, we don't have the documents of the thoughts of the common people from those long ago eras; we have the documents of their most "profound" thinkers. Today you are mocking them for their views.
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."
355402
evolution is a slow moving process. too slow to observe within a lifespan or possibly even a few generations. it could take tens or hundreds of thousands of years for it to happen.
503157
Evolution is by no means a one road definition.  That is, not even those who study it completely understand it.  I think, however, it may be unwise to think of evolution as having a "purpose".  Evolution is a process, with definite outcomes, but saying it has a purpose almost implies it is a living thing.\n\nI believe you may mean that in order to evolve, then beings must die.  As it stands right now, this is absolutely correct.  That is to say, in order for a species as a whole to change, mutations must happen, and then be passed on to further generations, and then become selected for.  If this in fact happens, then the those with the old traits will be selected against, and hence may die.  This is not because they are supposed to die, but because there is now something out there which better fits a niche and will compete for it.\n\nAs for the idea of eternal life, as it stands right now, it is completely unknown, and almost unfathomable.  One of the reasons for this is because the niches we live in are continually changing.  If organisms did not change as a species to fit them, then they would die out completely.  As long as the environment changes, one way or another, life will change to fit it as best it can.\n\nThis is not to say, however, that the idea of immortality is impossible to fathom.  There is nothing in evolution that touch on anything spiritual, including what humans call the soul.  These things are inherently seperated from evolution because of the fact that you can completely describe evolutions effects without considering it.  However, if you choose to believe in a soul, then I see no reason why it couldn't be a possibility.  But evolution does not encourage it.  I'm sorry.
853160
THE EVOLUTION\n\n“I know that the word of “Evolution” has become an obsolete and worthless word in some circles of the people___ and they do frown even on it’s simple reference.\n\nYou will however surprise to know that I, not only, respect these friends and their feelings, rather, I agree to their viewpoint, to some extent, in the light of the current knowledge. Because they apprehend “Evolution” in terms of material or mechanical evolution whereas material or mechanical evolution is far different from that of the creative evolution.\n\nAn important source of Evolution is the Nature’s process of selection. Which is originally one of the laws of nature and a secondary cause, like the other laws of nature, as it’s Creator is again God.\n\nAll the species generated by this process are again the indirect creation of God as the Nature’s process of selection, itself, is not capable to create any specie. It simply admits some species to be nourished, leaving aside the others, to be withered and this process works under some hereditary variations. So___ the survival or removal of a specific specie, is never accidental as it is presumed by the believers of material or mechanical evolution”.\n\nThis very statement of Edward Luther Castle positively removes that superstition. Which has captured, not only, the materialists but the religious leaders as well. Who are still in it’s captivity even after the lapse of so many years. Dr. George Erl Devis, the physicist, writes:\n\n“As much as the knowledge is flourishing and the superstitions are being unveiled___ importance & inevitability of the critical study of religion & ethics___ is increasing day by day in the same scale.”\n\nThe physicist is hinting upon the urge of the “quest for truth and the specific process” which may bring forth, a suitable solution for the problems of life. Of course, we can not lead the life in a particular way unless we come to know the origin of life. What is the actual and factual truth? Only after positive cognition of the same, we can learn to lead the real life. And__ the same learning may, in turn, lead us to the aim of life.\n\nGeorge Erl Devis writes further:\n\n“The surprising scientific discoveries have produced certain indispensable questions. Though not so new, but their nature has become more changed, on account of___ the receipt of detailed information about cosmic system. And___ in any case____ man can not be held as excluded thereform. Among these questions, is the most important question___ upon whose answer is depending___  our aim of life and the system of our moral values. And___ that is the same old question that:\n\nIs there any Supreme and Sublime Source who is the Creator of whole cosmos and who could be surnamed as God?\n\nAnd___ thereby arises the other question, that if God has created us then who has created God? This question is usually raised by the children, in a highly logical air.\n\nWe can not deny the fact, that science has no convincing reply of the question that God is existing or not? Rather, science can never bring forth a scientific proof thereof.\n\nWe are breathing in such a physical universe which is running smoothly in terms of the pre-ordained laws of it’s complexed system. But, it does not mean that we can ever derive some information, through this very universe, about a thing, which is existing outside to this universe. Our universe is just like a room without any doors and windows. And even if it is having the same, then, such glasses are fixed therein that to see & understand the outside thereform is totally impossible. Whereas to see inside from the outside__  is almost possible.”\n\nAs we can not prove the existence or non-existence of God on the basis of science. So it is the all-alone way for us, that whatsoever stock of information we have, about this universe. We should derive a reasonable result therefrom. Such a reasonable result___ which could never be objected on logic
523965
D\n\nPoint C is a frequent misunderstanding of the principle of evolution. Animals do not evolve on purpose or to any particular goal. There was a long squabble about this early in the 20th century: see if you can find out anything about the Soviet biologist Lysenko. \n\nPoint A is due to Malthus. \n\nI don't recognise point B.
384887
because evolution is false.
533795
evolution. Or perhaps speciation.
817849
That's impossible to quantify at the present. We'd have to poll millions of people around the globe just to get a reasonable demographic. What's more, everyone really should believe in evolution, and anyone who does not believe in evolution is clearly ignoring the facts. Evolution is a fact, not a possibility, and not just a theory. Whether or not it conflicts with Christianity's premise is yet to be determined, and I really could not care less. Evolution isn't a religious doctrine, it's a scientific analysis.
1087671
MicroEVOLUTION isn't evolution huh?\n\nWhat sort of bizzare nonsense is this? \n\nNext you'll be teling us that microeconomics isn't economics and that microsurgery isn't surgery.
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.
161432
The problem isn't evolution. The problem is the 'science' they use to 'prove' it.\n\nFirst, they started with an unsupported assumption (that the earth is millions / billions) of years old, then they used circular reasoning between varying fields of science to support that precept as fact, then they assumed without any evidence (in fact, in the face of their own evidence to the contrary) that one species can evolve into another.  Fact:  DNA strands of different lengths or different RNA locations cannot combine.  That means in order to produce say, a human, from say, gorillas, a male and a female gorilla would have to have identically mutated genes at exactly the same time at exactly the same place, find each other and successfully mate.  The probability of that happening one time (ape to man) exceeds the most liberal mathematical calculations of probability.  To happen thousands or hundreds of thousands of times to evolve from a single cell organism to any mammal way exceeds ANY mathematical concept of possibility.  What science has done is said "This is what we are going to prove, don't confuse us with the facts."
166140
Evolution is still happening today, so it is observable. However, it takes many generations for any adaptation to become part of the genetic code of a species, and therefore, only in a great many generations will there be any concrete proof. Scientists do not claim to have proved it, at least, none of the scientists I've consulted on this matter. They say there is a lot of evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution and none to disprove it, which I believe to be true. Because of this, it's a theory that has ceased to be contested. However, it is still a theory, with lots of evidence in it's favor but no proof.
1023532
Well, the main reason would be that evolution is a process that take thousands, if not millions, of years to accomplish. Also, because evolution works to allow an organism to compete for a resource better than another organism. At this point, we have no competition so the motivation for evolution is basically zero.\n\n I also think that the main issue with global warming isn't going to be humans being unable to survive the temperatures so much as the environment is going to be destroyed so we'll have less animals and plants to eat.
886021
Evolution and the means to survive.
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.