It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How accurate is the Theory of Evolution?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Recently I've been thinking a lot about how man came to be here on earth. After turning away from religion because of it's absurdity, I began backing up the theory of evolution because it seemed more likely. But now that I am in college, it's starting to make less and less sense. Now there seems to be some fact to it. But what gets me is how life on earth could have evolved into what we know as the dinosaurs, then get completely annihilated by the C–T or K-T extinction event (aka the big comet) then rebuild itself into the great diverse world we see today in just a few millenia. Granted that was 65 million years ago, but think of how literally dead the planet would be, and how much debris would have been mixed into the atmosphere, and how long it would have taken for everything to settle just so life could sustain itself on the surface. Now also add in the time it takes for life to evolve.
I just don't see how this is possible, even within the time frame of 65 million years.

You also have to take into account that alligators and crocs survived this cataclysmic event and haven't really changed much since except for slight variations such as longer and shorter snouts etc. And since they are one of the oldest living animals on this planet (to our current knowledge) shouldn't they be ruling this planet instead of us? Seeing as how they've been here longer, shouldn't they have evolved into croc people and be bombing and killing each other instead of us?


Now, here is my biggest problem with the theory. Modern man or Homo sapiens sprouted up around 200,000 years ago. I use the word sprouted because we did just that. There is no evidence that shows the we slowly evolved into homo sapiens from anything. There are variations that show similarities between us and other races, but no skeletal remains have been found that show we evolved from one of them. NONE. There is literally a gap between us and them.

Lastly, how is it that in 200,000 years since we came to be, that we ourselves have become so diverse? By this I mean White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc. Now if we all came from Africa how can skin color, hair color, and eye color of a person change in just a short amount of time? There are ENTIRE skeletal differences between every one of these races. Also, if the Africans of the time were such explorers and so intelligent, then how come the rest of the world advanced around them while they stayed in the stone age? (With the exception of Egypt who civilization also sprouted from nothing.) I mean if the Europeans hadn't have gone there, they still would be a backwards continent, some parts still are today! Shouldn't they be the most advanced race on the planet? Hell, even the Aztecs and Mayans were advanced!

I ask questions like these and teachers and professors always tell me the same thing, "It's just a theory." But then why do they teach it as if its fact? I guess the point of this discussion is really for you guys to answer these questions and either prove me right or wrong. Thoughts?




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Hi, evolution fans.

Does evolution exist ? . . .survival of the fitest ?

Why do the cormorans, on Easter island do not fly? AND
ALL the other cormorans, anywhere else on earth fly ?

Blue skies.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


Hey there C-Jean. Apparently no one is interested in this topic. Not taboo enough i suppose.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Truth818
 


The_Truth818,

As an Evolutionary Biologist - and a Christian - let me be the first to tell you the preponderance of evidence - just as with Relativistic Theory - does indeed support the hypotheses very well.

In fact both Evolution and Relativity are much better understood than many other physical phenommena we experience every day on Earth.

That being said - and I'm not really going to go into the respective arguments here that have been done to death - I see absolutely no contradiction between being a scientist and a man of faith at the same time.

I do believe that Genesis in the Bible is full of parables - particularly in the beggining - but that is not inconsistant with the Character of God to present moral truths in this way.

As a member of MENSA - who has a tendency to be left brained bias - I would encourage you to explore both science and spirituality in equal measures for a meaningful and fulfilling life.

On thing I will address in your questioning - however - is the common misconception that evolution leads to increasingly superior forms of life. This is not accurate - in fact - evolution can lead to really messed up lifeforms - who just happen to fit well withing a limited isolated environment - but who would be considered "disabled" in a larger environment.

Human beings - for example - have actually been trending towards decreased brain sizes in the last 10,000 years - likely with a similar reduction in average IQ. This change - however - probably has led to significantly less deaths by childbirth - as smaller heads lead to easier childbirth and thus greater fetility in people.

If this change had not occured - we may have been smarter - but not had enough population to allow for modern technologically advanced civilization as we know it.

Just a little food for thought there.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Scientific theory is taught as fact because it best fits all the known evidence. That's not to say evolution as we know it is completely correct, but it's the best we have so far.


Recently I've been thinking a lot about how man came to be here on earth. After turning away from religion because of it's absurdity, I began backing up the theory of evolution because it seemed more likely. But now that I am in college, it's starting to make less and less sense. Now there seems to be some fact to it. But what gets me is how life on earth could have evolved into what we know as the dinosaurs, then get completely annihilated by the C–T or K-T extinction event (aka the big comet) then rebuild itself into the great diverse world we see today in just a few millenia. Granted that was 65 million years ago, but think of how literally dead the planet would be, and how much debris would have been mixed into the atmosphere, and how long it would have taken for everything to settle just so life could sustain itself on the surface. Now also add in the time it takes for life to evolve.
I just don't see how this is possible, even within the time frame of 65 million years.


Reptiles were the dominant species before the extinction event, yes, but even though it wiped out most of Earth's species, the planet wasn't what I'd call dead. What the extinction event did do was allow small mammals to replace dinosaurs as the dominant type of species on Earth. Small mammals in the wild are lucky if they live to be 10 years old, and most procreate long before then. If you're looking at generations that last 10 years over 65 million years, that's 6.5 million generations. That's quite a bit of time for evolution and speciation to occur.

Evolution isn't simply natural selection. Other factors can also rapidly cause changes in species. Let's say there's a population of 100 monkeys in Africa. 20 of them have short tails and 80 of them have long tails. Now let's say there's a mudslide that separates the species. One side has 15 short tails and 5 long tails, and the other side 75 long tails and 5 short tails. The two separated groups could conceivably turn into two distinct species (over generations) of short tails and long tails instead of one species with a short tails recessive trait.


You also have to take into account that alligators and crocs survived this cataclysmic event and haven't really changed much since except for slight variations such as longer and shorter snouts etc. And since they are one of the oldest living animals on this planet (to our current knowledge) shouldn't they be ruling this planet instead of us? Seeing as how they've been here longer, shouldn't they have evolved into croc people and be bombing and killing each other instead of us?


Evolution simply adapts a species to its environment. Great White sharks, Alligators, etc. are all adequately adapted to their environment and are at the "top of the food chain." They don't need to evolve because there's nothing in the environment that they need to evolve to overcome.


Now, here is my biggest problem with the theory. Modern man or Homo sapiens sprouted up around 200,000 years ago. I use the word sprouted because we did just that. There is no evidence that shows the we slowly evolved into homo sapiens from anything. There are variations that show similarities between us and other races, but no skeletal remains have been found that show we evolved from one of them. NONE. There is literally a gap between us and them.


There are gaps in many fossil records, but there is fossil evidence for a common human/chimpanzee ancestor. It's not really true that there is no evidence for a common ancestor to humans, because we do have evidence of a common ancestor that slowly branched out into the different great ape species. We have fossil records of different ape species slowly changing (for instance, brains enlarging, pelvic bones becoming built for upright movement, etc.) into a more recognizable human form.


Lastly, how is it that in 200,000 years since we came to be, that we ourselves have become so diverse? By this I mean White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc. Now if we all came from Africa how can skin color, hair color, and eye color of a person change in just a short amount of time? There are ENTIRE skeletal differences between every one of these races. Also, if the Africans of the time were such explorers and so intelligent, then how come the rest of the world advanced around them while they stayed in the stone age? (With the exception of Egypt who civilization also sprouted from nothing.) I mean if the Europeans hadn't have gone there, they still would be a backwards continent, some parts still are today! Shouldn't they be the most advanced race on the planet? Hell, even the Aztecs and Mayans were advanced


The first part of this statement can be attributed to genetic drift in populations. Colder climates made melanin production in the skin less necessary, tribes in the areas began to see paler skin as more desirable for mates, and so you see a change take hold (this is just an example).

Also, humanity wasn't a huge force of nature 200,000 years ago like it is today. We were a very, very, very small population of family tribes that chased game across the Sahara, into the fertile crescent, into Asia, Europe, Russia, and then North and South America over the course of thousands of years. As some of these families kept migrating and some stayed, differences between brothers and sisters became defining aspects of ethnicities in different geographic locations.

About why some people seem more advanced than others: That is not due to evolution. Africans are just as smart as South Americans. Geography, climate, disease, and social forces were the major players in advancing human civilization. The temperate and arable land of Europe and the fertile crescent allowed humans to settle and create stable nations, which in turn allowed them to spend less time acquiring food and more time pondering abstract ideas.

If you're interested in any of that, I suggest you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Here is an extremely extensive library from PBS with video, interactive flash, documents, and web sites that you might find helpful.

Source



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthMagnet
 


Huh. I like what you said there, especially about the superior life-form thing. I am in fact a spiritual person, as i do believe we have a soul as well as my experience with ghost etc. And when I was a child I used to be what I call a super-christian.
But the whole God- theory is what I don't believe in, as well as creationism as we perceive it today.
But I do like what you said there and it was a great addition to the topic. Star for you.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Truth818
You also have to take into account that alligators and crocs survived this cataclysmic event and haven't really changed much since except for slight variations such as longer and shorter snouts etc. And since they are one of the oldest living animals on this planet (to our current knowledge) shouldn't they be ruling this planet instead of us? Seeing as how they've been here longer, shouldn't they have evolved into croc people and be bombing and killing each other instead of us?


You appear to not know how evolution works. Just becasue a species is older, does not mean it will be the dominant species in the future. Single celled Amoeba's have been around longer than crocodiles, and you dont see large blobs of gelatinous material walking around, right? Crocodiles havent evolved as they havent needed to. Rivers, lakes and swamps are still around, and the food sources are still there, then why do they need to evolved? Essentially they are already close to the perfect creature in their habitat, they dont need to become human like. The concept is not a linear pathway, it branches like a tree.



Now, here is my biggest problem with the theory. Modern man or Homo sapiens sprouted up around 200,000 years ago. I use the word sprouted because we did just that. There is no evidence that shows the we slowly evolved into homo sapiens from anything. There are variations that show similarities between us and other races, but no skeletal remains have been found that show we evolved from one of them. NONE. There is literally a gap between us and them.


Actually there is evidence, fossil remains have proven that the evolutionary stages of man have been progressive. Obviously you havent heard of Homo Habilis, Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Antecester, Homo Rhodesiensis etc. All these were remains were long before Homo Sapiens existed, each becoming more progressively closer to modern man. Show me some evidence where it says that No skeletal remains have been found of pre homo sapien man.



Lastly, how is it that in 200,000 years since we came to be, that we ourselves have become so diverse? By this I mean White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc. Now if we all came from Africa how can skin color, hair color, and eye color of a person change in just a short amount of time?


Considering your lack of knowledge about evolution, then I also assume you know nothing about adaptation.


Adaptation is the process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitatThis process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology


Why do you think that people from warmer climates are darker skinned than people from colder countries (ie The scandinavian countries)?

Its because the need for darker pigmentation in hotter countries is essential to add protection from a harsher dose of UV radiation



There are ENTIRE skeletal differences between every one of these races. Also, if the Africans of the time were such explorers and so intelligent, then how come the rest of the world advanced around them while they stayed in the stone age? (With the exception of Egypt who civilization also sprouted from nothing.)


Like I said before, just because something is older, doesnt make it more advanced. Evolution doesnt work like that. You seriously need to do research on evolution, because your way of thinking is flawed



I mean if the Europeans hadn't have gone there, they still would be a backwards continent, some parts still are today! Shouldn't they be the most advanced race on the planet? Hell, even the Aztecs and Mayans were advanced!


And they got wiped out by the Spanish




I ask questions like these and teachers and professors always tell me the same thing, "It's just a theory." But then why do they teach it as if its fact? I guess the point of this discussion is really for you guys to answer these questions and either prove me right or wrong. Thoughts?


Sigh


The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities



A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:It identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class


So now you know why its called the theory of evolution, its all based of observations and why these things occured.

Jut becuase the word theory is used, doesnt make it an idea.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Truth818
 


My theory has always been simply that evolution can happen much much faster than we think it can given the right environment, but there is anti-religious bias that won't admit it, but a drastic change in environment can speed up evolution dramatically.

It's just the anti-creation people trying to stay as far away from the 6 to 10,000 years mark as possible. Even if the difference is 1 million years instead of 2 million and still nowhere close to 6,000 years they still won't admit it cause anything closer to 6,000 is just a risk they can't take.

In other words, they have a, evolution takes longer than it does, bias. It's cause the whole evolution concept really got known on this, it takes soooooo long concept so creation must be false thing, and that's just where they'll be stuck for a long time.

There's actually evidence of this as well. A simple geographic separation of a species into two separate groups can lead to changes in the species in just a few generations. We've even recently recorded speciation of birds into a new species of bird in just a few generations.

Also, mutating RNA in the lab mutates within hours, and bacteria has been shown to evolve the ability to digest nylon in just a few months. Other evidence is available if anyone looks. It doesn't take long to realize there's a possibility evolution can happen faster than we think. However, few want to admit that.

Also, I'm not really too concerned with speciation. For example we now know grizzly bears and polar bears can mate, but many still consider them to be different species. Speciation though is just a classification system for animals and the scientists could have used any classification system they wanted.

I do however think this bias of theirs caused them to create a classification system that was hostile to the Bible however. Truth be told the Bible doesn't even give a crap about species. It cares about kinds which is something different than a species. It uses a completely different classification system of animals and if a new species of animal comes from an old species of animals that's perfectly okay with the Bible just as long as it's the same kind. But what does kind mean? I have no idea. The Bible never says exactly what counts as a kind.

Scientists however came along and made up their own word species and redefined it and said it meant the same thing as it does in the Bible and so the Bible is wrong. The flaw in logic of course though is that the two words don't mean the same thing and when it comes to the Bible we're not even really sure what definition they were using.

Now, I'm not saying the Bible is true. I'm just trying to point out this anti-creation bias most evolutionists have which means they have a personal interest in making it look like evolution happens slower than it does or at least it might.

I personally just care about how much difference can be created in a species by differences in environment and how fast it happens. I believe it is normally very very slow, but I also believe it can happen very very fast given the right circumstances and evidence even shows that can be the case, but the anti-religious bias still says, no evolution is a long long long process!

So, that's the actual problem I think in my opinion. There's a huge chunk of people out there that simply want to believe it always takes forever and there's no short cuts, because if there were, OH NOES WHAT ABOUT THE FUNDIES!

Well who gives a crap about the fundies? What's the friggin truth of the matter ya know?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Thank you both Avenginggecko and OzWeatherman for your insight. I didn't really appreciate your arrogance Oz but it's ok. I understand aggravation in the face of ignorance. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up for me. I now have a better understanding of how evolution works. Like I said before, when I asked these questions before I never really got a straight answer. (Maybe because they were stupid.)
Then again, no question is stupid as long as you get a right answer.
Love this website.....



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Truth818
 


Sorry about that....

At first I though you were one of those fundamentalist Christians that seem to start all these threads frequently, so apologies for that



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by The_Truth818
 


Sorry about that....

At first I though you were one of those fundamentalist Christians that seem to start all these threads frequently, so apologies for that





HA HA...... No I'm far from that. I just had a misconception of the concept.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Truth818
 


No problem, I'm glad to shed a little light on the subject before detractors showed up and start throwing poop around and cackling like monkeys about how evolution is all bunk.


Evolution doesn't exclude a creator unless you're atheist, and religion doesn't exclude evolution unless you're a fundamentalist. The truth, as always, is neither black or white, but probably a shade of grey.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by The_Truth818
 


No problem, I'm glad to shed a little light on the subject before detractors showed up and start throwing poop around and cackling like monkeys about how evolution is all bunk.


Evolution doesn't exclude a creator unless you're atheist, and religion doesn't exclude evolution unless you're a fundamentalist. The truth, as always, is neither black or white, but probably a shade of grey.


My thoughts exactly. I'm beginning to believe that the truth is not all in one book, but a combination of them. It's just somewhere down the line someone got too focused on one thing and thus the separation and confusion began.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Truth818
HA HA...... No I'm far from that. I just had a misconception of the concept.


Thats a relief

Im thinking that some of them might pop up and tell us how the world is only 6000 years old soon



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Truth818
 


for some of your questions here (and they are good ones) I'll throw out a few things to kick you in the right direction, or at least provide some debate fodder.

One of the longest period of evolution was the race to get from R/DNA stands to fulls developed single cells and then spreading out. Then another long stretch going from single cell, to colony to complex multicelled life forms. Once that happened, things pretty much exploded due to the available adaptability and diversity.

So, the big ground pounder happens and flattens a pretty sizable chunk of.. well, everything really. Well, this is the type of thing that drives evolution in to overdrive. Not only do you now have some new environments to adapt to (temperature, etc) you also have the potential for mutation going off the chart from all the foreign substances being introduced in quantity.

Now, also keep in mind, there predator / prey relationships.. that got entirely rewritten as well as laying the groundwork for a lot of competition for resources with many of the plants dying and all. That's a race for who can consume the most efficiently, find resources the best, propagate the fastest and so on.

As for civilization advancement.. that's a social thing, not so much evolution. advancement is typically driven by need which is probably why you don't find mining equipment all that much in mostly aquatic based cultures.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Others were faster, but since I wrote a long text, I will post it anyway:

All species are well adapted to their environment. Large predators or other specialists are able to outcompete generalists who try to dabble in their field. Although a generalist may be outcompeted by the specialist, he has one important advantage on his side. He is not limited to one special resource. A generalist can always switch to the food/shelter/habitat etc. which is readily available.

The K-T event was a catastrophic event. Many species were completely wiped out in a short time period. The exact nature of the K-T event is still debated, but with the dinosaurs and pterosaurs whole orders became extinct. This means, many ecological niches were left empty. Now, generalists were no longer outcompeted. They could occupy niches which were formerly occupied by specialists. Many of these species became more and more specialized in a short time. A few primitive generalistic species evolved into a wide variety of different species.

This process is called adaptive radiation. Proof, that adaptive radiation as response to empty ecological niches can happen gives the island biogeography. On islands many ecological niches are empty. A generalist species, which settles on an island will quickly become more specialized in response to the available resources. One founder species can evolve into many different species. Evolutionary changes on islands happen usually quicker, than on continents. In fact, remarkable adaptions can be acquired by a population within a only a few generations.

Cretaceous primitive insectivore mammals had some generalistic traits. Part of their body plan are diverse teeth. With four different kind of teeth (molar, premolar, canin tooth and incisive) some species were able to use different kinds of food. So they possessed a good preadaptation. This allowed them to quickly occupy those ecological niches, which were in the past occupied by herbivore dinosaurs and small carnivores. Birds were no longer outcompeted by pterosaurs and could dominate the airspace.

In contrast to mammals, all crocodiles were already relative specialized when the K-T event happened. They were unable to quickly occupy the ecological niches which were formerly occupied by herbivore dinosaurs. But they became the top predators in many ecosystems.

For a cosmopolitic species, the anatomical differences between human races are only small. Compare them to the drastic differences between wolf, poodle, dachshund, chihuahua and greyhound, which all compose more or less one species. Wolves have acquiered these morphological differences in less than 15.000 years.
(Since wolves normally kill dogs and don't mate with them, one can argue that dogs and wolves are two distinct species, but wolves can and rarely do mate with dogs and produce fertile offspring so one can also consider them to be one species)

The exact evolution of humans is still debated. But before 200.000 B.C. and the rise of Homo sapiens lived already Homo heidelbergiensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis and many other hominid-species. The skeletons of these species look not very different from modern humans. But only very few bones, and more important intact skulls have been found until now. Homo heidelbergiensis, Homo ergaster and Homo erectus already had knowledge, how to use fire and produce primitive tools. This allowed these species to alter their diet. How much these primitive species and modern day Homo sapiens sapiens differ in their intelligence is a question nobody can answer with certitude.

But there is consensus, that the primitive Homo sapiens sapiens from 200.000 years ago was as intelligent as we are today. He used his intelligence only for other endeavours. We don't know what tales he spun, if he practiced religion, or what else was important to him.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I like the way you think truthmagnet, in respect to the fact science and spirituality do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is frustrating to me that when I say I try to follow the teachings of Jesus and believe in God I am automatically painted by many as academically and scientifically challenged. One can study science and be a believer in God.

---------

Avenginggecko said:

The temperate and arable land of Europe and the fertile crescent allowed humans to settle and create stable nations, which in turn allowed them to spend less time acquiring food and more time pondering abstract ideas.

I believe there is more than leisure time , as you stated there are other factors. In the recent Nat. Geo. mag. there is an interesting article on the Hadza who live in N. Tanzania. They are still hunter/gatherers and have not changed for thousands of years.

Just something to consider when saying that leisure time allows the means to think abstractly and therefore by that assumption "evolve" in intelligence. Maybe these folks have it right and what we consider intelligence isnt everything we have made it out to be.

From the article:
They live just south of the same section of the valley in which some of the oldest fossil evidence of early humans has been found. Gene­tic testing indicates that they may represent one of the primary roots of the human family tree—perhaps more than 100,000 years old.

They have no known history of famine; rather, there is evidence of people from a farming group coming to live with them during a time of crop failure. The Hadza diet remains even today more stable and varied than that of most of the world's citizens. They enjoy an extraordinary amount of leisure time. Anthropologists have estimated that they "work"—actively pursue food—four to six hours a day. And over all these thousands of years, they've left hardly more than a footprint on the land.


Link to article:

ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

I think any anthropologist or anyone just curious in other cultures will find this article very interesting. I know it would be awesome to be able to go spend a few weeks with the Hadza just to see what life was like so long ago , yet still is.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by savagediver]

* very challenged grammatically


[edit on 2-12-2009 by savagediver]

[edit on 2-12-2009 by savagediver]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
WOW I'm surprised this thread is actually bringing in some constructive ideas. Most of this kind just seem to rake in people who like to rant biased opinions about nonsense.

Anyway, thanks everyone, I like all your ideas and info.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by savagediver
 


Very interesting article, I'll have to research it a little bit more. It appears that the Hadza tribe, kind of like Great Whites and Alligators as a whole, are well-suited to their particular environment. I can't say I'm not jealous that they only have a six hour work day.


No ATS though, that certainly is a shame!



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I understand micro evolution and as a Christian I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is the lack of evidence for macro evolution. According to the theory we should be constantly evolving, but I've never seen a partially evolved human/ape walking around. In fact, I've never seen an actual skeleton of any of the evolutionary stages that supposedly exist. I challenge anyone to search the net for pictures of actual fossils, then reply with the link. All you will find are fragments, with which they make up drawings.

There seems to be a leap before you look attitude with science. All you have to do is Google "evolution fraud" and see how many fakes they accepted and promoted, only to say oops in the end, but the oops didn't get as much coverages as the discovery.

Another problem I have is how exactly did non-living matter turn into living matter? That's not something we observe ever. I've never seen anything go from disorder to very complex order.

Sure there are experiments conducted such as things with fruit flies, but what science fails to mention is that an intelligence is behind the experiment. If man didn't create the perfect conditions for the experiment to achieve the results they wanted, would the fruit flies have "evolved"? When have we observed one species of animal turn into a completely different species? Never. We have whales and we have hippos, but where are the in betweens?

Common sense tells you that if you have a partially developed foot and a partially developed fin, you can neither swim nor walk efficiently. That increases the chances of being eaten by predators and decreases the chances of finding a mate. Science does teach that the female seeks out the fittest mates.

Another problem is mutations. How often is a mutation passed on to the next generation? Especially one such as the above partial flipper/foot? There are far too many questions. It seems like evolution takes more faith to believe in than God. In order to accept evolution, I have to have faith that:

Everything just existed, then exploded, non-living matter came to life, DNA assembled itself, it then adjusted itself to survive in its environment, then learned to replicate itself into more complex life forms, then developed into mail and females of the bigger species, then developed the penis and the vagina to work together without knowing that other parts were needed from the same species of another gender, then became self aware...

Wow, that's a lot of things to believe without any evidence whatsoever that that's what really happened. Then scientists want to ban an actual science that challenges Darwin in anyway. I'm not talking about Creationism, but actual science that shows the faults in the theory. Its like the Pope decree that common people had to believe whatever the Pope said without being able to read the Bible for themselves.

They don't want all the evidence on the table, just what they want us to believe. Darwinism is nothing more than religion in different packaging and the scientists are the Popes and Priests of the new religion of Darwinism.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join