-
Evolution
Evolution theory is accepted by an extremely large majority of scientists.
Your critique is somewhat strange in that I do not feel there is anything implicitly comforting about evolution. I find it very difficult to believe that evolution theory was posited merely to provide comfort to inquisitive minds.
A thousand years in the entire span of evolution is nothing, you have to go far further back to see real tangible change in te development of humans. This is all available and easy to see. We have skulls of pre-ancient humans that show more similarity to hominidae skulls than present, with carbon dating providing a fairly clear picture as to how the frame of Homo-erectus changed into the present form. Most scientists do not believe we evolved from apes however, the current consensus is that we evolved from a 'cousin' of apes- an intermediary species that is now extinct.
It seems to me that you are too quick to judge evolution as faulty and have not provided a very convincing refutation of it. I suggest you start with the source - read The Origin of Species, or another biology book related before you criticise.
36%
Voted for by Ns243cxcvi, petethemeat, Weydon, Krick.
-
Evolution theory
i don't believe in evolution. i don't believe that sometime ago my ancestors were apes.
evolution is some story that we humans invented to stop ourself from going insane by our own curiosity of knowing all things.
if evolution was true then where is it??.. millenniums ago we find human which are pretty much the same as we are now.. so how long does evolution need to prove itself??
the only logic in evolution i find is adaptation
we adapt according our surroundings and way of life.
so share with me your point of view
27%
Voted for by abuyi, Dwn, CrybKeeper.
-
Evolution
What do you mean by 'Evolution theory is wrong'? There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to see that an evolution has occurred on the Earth. It's stupid to deny this. I'm assuming you're denying the fact that it was accidental? Now that is up for debate. But I don't think anyone can seriously deny that some form of progressive evolution has taken place.
18%
Voted for by icyrose, HopelessDreams.
-
Let me propose something
The two most debated things between religious people and scientists are 1) the beginning of the universe and 2) the age of the earth. So I won't go there.
But if you're talking about Darwin's theory of evolution, it is certainly true. And to fit this in a christian context, let me say that natural selection does not disprove Genesis; actually, just the opposite. Let me propose this idea: before man sinned, everything was perfect, so there was no need for natural selection. But after we sinned, our genes became imperfect, and so did the world. And thus, there's now something called change. And natural selection was a gift to humans from God in our ever-changing world. It let us adapt. It lets us survive.
So you see, evolution proves creation.
18%
Voted for by Shya, CrybKeeper.
None of the choices fit your opinion? Add one →
|
Adding your reply:
.. it wont change the fact that i am here and i what being i am.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
March 31, 2009
Edit | Reply
well i am not a scientist and happy to know there are some scientist who dont believe in the theory.. let be the minority and i was not planning to criticize such complicated theory.
I know evolution research was a very hectic and very knowledgeable and lead to many discoveries. classifying and categorizing species which is very useful to discover a new species within the same species. I kind of agree with most of it but not all of it especially the basic of it.
now what dosnt make sense that form this theory there should a few parent species form which the huge diversity of other species derived. there are no fossil which are between the two chains of species. i mean a species which directly links between the both.
earth was born form sun and was a hot burning funnel with different solid and mineral but iron was not form the sun. its probably from the asteroid that hit the earth before it created the protective ionic shield. So how did the first life species formed? Many scientists are working to find it and they can’t find the answer. They thought it is because of water and high humid temperatures even may be cause of mud. The whole earth is made of carbon so are the species. We all in the end are carbon compounds. But they just couldn’t fuse it all to create life. The evolution theory questions the entire life from and it fails there.
If we see how we live ( for now ignoring the ones who are not so fortunate) we have access to good healthy nutritious food and we are not found of heavy labor which we leave it on machines, we have an amazing medical support that can actually keep a dying man alive for god know’s how long with huge amount of money. So definitely our bone structures would be different from the one found millennium’s ago. But you will find humans fossils millenniums ago.
If you notice closely even mankind is unique to its geography and survived in one of most extreme condition nature could throw. People from different geography have unique characteristics that you can understand their skin color, their height, there body types, their eyes.. all are different but are common in their geographic area. Traditional arab mostly have thick eyebrows and big eye lashes.. Asians have asian eyes.. some have too much hair and some don’t. early Eskimos were short and skinny. .. there are so many to point.
If they all are called humans they all can’t have the same parent specie. Humans where there in some early time ago and dint not evolve from another ape type specie. We could see the changes in our body because we manipulate our growth from early age.. so we grow different but we still are humans. Data recorded of man from Inca civilization are still the same of how we are now. We might have different brains but that we can’t count as evolution cause if they lived with same information that we live now they might have the same brain.
petethemeat
March 31, 2009
Edit | Reply
The fossil record is slightly tricky, as the fossilisation process is an extremely rare occurence, that depends upon geographic locations being met, as well as the fact that some animals will not fossilise.
The theory has changed from its inception by Darwin, there is now a great deal more support for interspeciesism and hybridisation providing the genetic diversity, as well as the traditional explanations of natural selection and geographical isolation.
Indeed I find evolution lacking when it comes to explaining how life can arrive from supposedly abiotic planet. Yet a number of theories have been posited and I do believe that science will find a more conclusive explanation, as I do with most areas of study.
It is highly unlikely that humans did evolve from one set of parent humans. Instead what is likely is that a number of homo sapien like species coe-existed such as neanderthals, and that breeding took place between them, before the other species (not homo-sapiens) were out-competed by the more intelligent humans.
However the genus homo, is believed to have arose literally millions of years ago. Geographic and cultural differences are likely to have led to the racial differences you point out, but genetically the difference between a blond nordic man and a dark skinned nigerian are tiny.
April 1, 2009
Edit | Reply
well still evolution is a theory which for now makes lot of sense. it can be wrong as the very early believe of the earth is flat!!
it just not so convincing to me. the chances are very blur. genetically we all are the same thats why we all are under one species. human forms are found in all parts of the world. they all have same genetics and had it ages ago. we should still continue to evolve as we are moving ahead if not us some other species should cause of us many species got extinct. its seems evolution just stopped as the discoveries of fossils.
about the fossil i think because of the change in earth's geography; fossils might lay under deep oceans or some very remote place .. just a possibility
cause evolution made sense due to study of fossils. but if they could find the predecessor and the ancestor how come they just couldn't find the middle one.
they are many other loop holes in the theory. for now which i let go.
thanks for sharing your point with such patience
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!