- NEW!
by Jessicax23 on January 18th, 2007
Out of all of the great evolutionary adaptations that animals have gone through, why didn't any of them evolve to taste bad?
by Nightkeeper on February 2nd, 2012
| 2 people like this
What "evolutionary" changes do you see the human race undergoing in the next 1000 years?
by bladecloudstar777 on March 12th, 2012
| 5 people like this
Has the homo-sapien evolved from fish to man Or monkey to man Or fish, monkey then man?
by laser on March 4th, 2012
| 4 people like this
If evolution is true, then why do women dressed up as cats look so hot, huh? What evolutionary advantage could there be to boinking cats?
by Amorphous Blob on February 9th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
What's it called when an organism (animal, plant) adapts to a new environment within it's own lifetime?
by Marky Mark on January 29th, 2012
| 2 people like this
You're reading Do you believe in evolution?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Nice response! :)
by Teri00 on January 18th, 2007
You DO have to believe in it. You WILL believe in it- RIGHT NOW! (jk!)
by Sketchy Mess Jeoffory on January 18th, 2007
You think it's been proven? HAHAHAHA!
by lounger on February 16th, 2007
jbarbie23: It has not been proven. It falls in the same category as global warming, many say they have proof it is many sat they have proof it isn't. It is still theory, not fact by any stretch of the imagination. We have viruses that mutate and minor species that change slightly but there is nothing that either has been proven to cros species - as with man and ape - and on down the food chain. There is no link betwen man and ape - missing link - or anything else that ties us together. If you have real proof, such as unbiased resources etc, please let me and all the others who are not convinced see it so we can believe as well. At this point in time it takes as much if not more faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.
by Abbyguy on February 27th, 2007
Abbyguy >> Here Here. Where the evolutionists need their biggest help they can not produce. The actual evidence is lacking. The concept is clear and makes sense, but if you can't display evidence special change then how can you claim it as fact and science? I can't believe their marketing people are that good!
by Someguy on February 27th, 2007
Abby/Some guy - sorry - development of new species have been directly observed. Development of entirely new abilities/functions has been observed - particularly at the bacterial level.
The fossil record contains a record of ever-more human like animals turning up over time, until there's us.
Throw that evidence out, and you can never convict a criminal on the basis of forensic evidence again!
by Friartuck on February 27th, 2007
Plus, anyone who thinks that scientists hold that apes "turned into" humans as you suggest, Abbyguy, is not following the science. No one is claiming that animals "cross species" but that different species evolve from a common ancestor, as has been proven by all available evidence. Friartuck is right; you can refuse to be convinced by clear, unambiguous proof if you like, but that doesn't render it any less evidentiary. It just makes you look like a revisionist intent on clinging to your prejudice despite the facts - much like the kind of see-no-evil hear-no-evil bird-brained jurors that would reject clear forensic evidence, like in Friartuck's example. I'll stay on the side of objective observation of solid evidence, rather than converting to the "I don't want this to be true because it conflicts with my prejudice, so I'll keep arguing against it despite the mounting proof" side, thanks.
by Jessicax23 on February 28th, 2007
jbarie23 >> You state that no one is claiming that animals cross species, but that "species evolve from a common ancestor". This assumes either 1)We all evolved from the same thing and thus there is cross species evolution or 2)there were mammals, fish etc. of each base class from the beginning of time and that dismisses evolution if animals just "appeared".
by Someguy on February 28th, 2007
Your logic is flawed. Think of it in generational terms. My sons have a common ancestor, but one DNA didn't "evolve into" the other. You can see this clearly at the bacterial level, as pointed out by Friartuck. You don't even have to look at the clear evidence of human evolution; it's happening to other organisms at such a pace that we can observe it in real time. It's not crossing species; but adaptation that creates differences substantial enough to warrant a new species name. The idea of species differentiation is a human one; it's only a different species because we give it a different name, and we do so based on the characteristics that we observe. Therefore, when an organism multiplies over many generations, different groups of the same species can adapt over time in different ways (for different reasons based on their differing experiences and needs) into organisms with drastically different physiological characteristics. Of course we wouldn't call them by the same name.
by Jessicax23 on February 28th, 2007
But if a frog does not become a grashopper how do we get the grasshopper and why do we still have frogs?
by Someguy on February 28th, 2007
If my elder son does not become my younger son, then where did my younger son come from and why do we still have my older son? The basis for your question is not logical. Living things are driven to survive and reproduce. They each had their own process to get to their current state from their common ancestor, for their own reasons, and based on their own individual environments and what they needed in order to survive. Off the top of my head, I don't know how far back grasshoppers and frogs are thought to have been related. The common ancestor may not exist anymore, or it may still exist because it was perfectly suited to where it stayed, but its progeny moved and adapted to their new environments over time.
by Jessicax23 on February 28th, 2007
Someguy - Jbarb's right here - a frog has never become a grasshopper - but a long way back lived a population of things. Some of the population became isolated from the others. The two populations faced their own environmental pressures and changed and evolved to suit in their own ways - over several hundred million years. A long time! Currently, the two populations are as different as frogs and grasshoppers. They'll continue to change in the future - who knows what will be on this planet in another 200,000 years even.
If you really are interested in learning about evolution - read up. Start with www.talkorigins.com for example and just start reading. It is a site chock full of info, references and reading suggestions.
If you are not, please be honest and say so!
by Friartuck on February 28th, 2007
So cross species evolution exists if what you two say is true. It may take time, but it happens. JBarbie said above it does not happen. I don't get it.
by Someguy on February 28th, 2007
Read up mate - it is a huge, complex area that is impossible to explain easily. I think that is why so many misrepresentations etc. around it occur.
"Cross species" is the wrong term - implying frogs turning into grasshoppers. What really happens is that two groups of frogs change and evolve in isoation from one another and become two separate species of something - neither is recognisable as a "frog" anymore.
Generations of changes in a population will give rise to separate species. This has been directly observed in nature and in the lab. "Species" meaning populations of animals that are no longer willing or no longer able to interbreed.
To start getting a hold on it all - try reading through this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ It is huge, but even then just a tiny, tiny introduction. It is relatively easy to follow though, and very iteresting.
by Friartuck on February 28th, 2007
What I don't get is; how do they know that we have been around for that length of time, given that carbon dating is so ridiculously in accurate?
by Abbyguy on February 28th, 2007
1. Carbon dating is not ridiculously inaccurate - that is a lie spread by less-than-honest authors - usually pushing biblical or quranic creationism. Unfortunately it is picked up by honest christians (and others) and treated as truth because the authors are trusted.
2. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years and is only relevant for substances that were once living tissue.
Igneous rocks can be dated using a variety of other methods. Decades of honing those skills mean the dates are reasonably accurate.
From there, ages of fossil remains can be dated based on the known age of rocks they are found in. It's slightly round-a-bout - as fossils occur in sedimentary rock which can't be dated - it is dated based on igneous samples above and below it.
So - Carbon dating is not even used once timescales of over 50,000 years ago are discussed.
by Friartuck on February 28th, 2007
Forgot - if interested, have a quick look here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
by Friartuck on February 28th, 2007
I have a lot of Scientists who say that Evolution is not real. Many of which are Atheists. You can't prove something was a million years old, because for one, the world can change in an instant which means it can effect the bones, tissue, and so much more at either a rapid rate or a slow rate, you will never know. For two, you can't say that each organism contains the same amount, living or not, that is pathetic. That is like saying, everyone on the earth 50 years ago had blue eyes and brown hair. If you would like the site, I will give it to you...wait, there are numerous sites that are the same thing. If you also want to look at it this way, paper deteriorates, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are in great condition, and why is that, because it was buried away from SUNLIGHT, HUMAN CONTACT, and in bottles, in order to preserve this. Not to mention as well, is there any evidence in Caesar's books or the Egyptian writings that state someone was 50,000+ years old, nope, and why is that?
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
I decided I would share anyway, some of the Scientists who disagree.
(http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm)
(Http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.html)
(http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391b8e886a42.htm)
http://www.trueorigin.org/old_earth_evo_heart.asp
(http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b618543324b.htm)
(http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-25.htm)
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
?????????
Sorry - not one word of that made any sense at all. I'm not even sure enough of what you were talking about to comment on it.
Went through some information on those site you gave me, thanks.
Nothing there that has not been refuted or explained, over and over and over and over again.
by Friartuck on March 3rd, 2007
I will help you. SCIENTISTS say that Evolution is not provable. SCIENTISTS say that you can't PROVE how old or even predict the age of bone. Here is one example..."Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.) OR....
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation. . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71) ....What these sites say is that Evolution DOESN'T WORK. Here is the best one of all...
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
Dr. Colin Patterson Head Paleontologist said this, Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long." "So either there is something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally I know there's nothing wrong with me. So for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. The question is this: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true?"...After saying this he went to Members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar....
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
... at the University of Chicago. Some of the greatest Evolutionists in the world. A very prestige s body of Evolutionists and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said , It ought not, to be taught, in high school. NOW...What does this say about Evolution, if the Head Paleontologist doesn't believe in Evolution. I will even give you his Biography if you don't know who he was, but being a head Paleontologist, wouldn't you think he knows what he is talking about? http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/patterson-c.html Here is one site for him. After all those years of being a Paleontologist and Evolutionist, wouldn't you think he would still believe in Evolution if it were true, and could be proven?
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
Colin Patterson, constantly misquoted by creationist sources and got absolutely sick of it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html.
by Friartuck on March 3rd, 2007
The Evolutionary Timetable quote - "gradualism" has long been replaced by a collection of other theories. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
by Friartuck on March 3rd, 2007
Jade>> If a dinosaur became an alligator then where are the dinogator fossils? Where are the fossils for all of the evolutionary attempts that failed? Where are the transitions that did not work? Scientists have found a lot of fossils and none that point to evolution.
by Someguy on March 3rd, 2007
Scientists don't PROVE anything. Proof is for mathematics. Scientists deal in evidence and theories that best support the evidence. There is no PROOF of the theory of gravity - just a body of evidence that suggests the theory is accurate. Same with the theory of evolution. It might get overturned one day, if the evidence points that way.
by Friartuck on March 3rd, 2007
Seriously though - I am not interested in your argument. I've read 90% of what any creationist ever fed me already. You're not going to change my mind - I obviously won't be changing yours. My only advice is, get educated and read more than the stuff fed you by creationist authors.
by Friartuck on March 3rd, 2007
That's the joy of evolution you don't have to prove anything. The evolutionists have stated that evolution exists. The creationists have asked to see the evidence. We get a lot of explanation that describes a theory and a lot descriptions of the theory, but absolutely no proof of the theory. I don't think the standard is too high. There is proof of gravity: drop an apple. Drop anything and it will eventually make it to the ground. The "body of evidence" that evolutionists cling to points to adaptation and not evolution. In fact, the fossil evidence points to a lack of transition the evidence indicates a wholesale destruction of species groups and brand new ones taking their place, kind of like someone just put them there. And I appreciate the "get educated" part. It's a fall back of all evolutionists. If we don't agree with you we're stupid and need to read more. We are "fed" arguments as if we can't think of anything on our own. It's in an insult.
by Someguy on March 3rd, 2007
[Continuation] While your group is off studying and reading, you think oour grooup is asking some overlord what they think so we can spit it back out like mindless drones. Why is that? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with evolution (or at a minumim questions it) is stupid and needs to "get educated and read more". If I read more I would change my beliefs? No. You stated you don't believe something based on who authored it. I, and a lot of other non-evolutionists, happen to be very bright people who can ask very intelligent questions and when I do I am always told that I just have to read more. One more book will do it guess, one more article and I will get it. All I want is the evidence. It's pretty simple. I am looking for the most simple of answers and evolution can not provide it. Until then, I will keep reading BOTH sides of the argument and holding true to my POV which is: God created the earth and heavens. After that, man screwed it up.
by Someguy on March 3rd, 2007
Don't get all excited Someguy. I'd suggest "read more" because if you think transitional fossils don't exist - you are wrong. There are examples after examples after examples. Archeopteryx for a start. A very famous example. Ambulocetus and at least three others that provide evidence for the development of whales from a mammal that was once land-dwelling. They are there. The only people saying they are not tend to be fundamentalist christians or muslims insisting that their very particular interpretation of their holy book is the only true one.
I personally have listened to the likes of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Andrew Snelling, John Woodmorappe, Jonathan Sarfati, Steve Austin and others lie - baldly and blatantly, in writing and speech - about things to do with evolution, evidence, fossils, time, dating techniques etc. It is these people, and their ilk, that produce most of the material then read by other christians, and it is downright wrong.
by Friartuck on March 3rd, 2007
Seriously - continue belief in god and his role as original creator. Evolution says nothing about that! The problem is to try and prove that by continually spouting what you have read or heard from the pulpit or wherever as a truth - then flying into a rage when someone points out that you are incorrect and need to do more research.
Evolution is NOT simple. It doesn't have a simple - "here it is" one line explanation. It doesn't have a "here it is" one piece of irrefutable evidence you can use. It comes together from multiple scientific disciplines and to understand it thoroughly takes honest to goodness hard work and research.
by Friartuck on March 3rd, 2007
Evolution contradicts the Laws of Science. The Laws the accepted Laws of Science. The first law, the First Law of Thermal Dynamics (which is an Energy Law), says that Energy is created nor destroyed it just simply changes form. First law of Thermal dynamics, which may not mean a whole lot to you, but the second one has a lot more to do with Evolution. The second Law of Thermal dynamics, and this is from my college science book, Boise State Science book, so that way you know that I am quoting from a secular sources, and I am not going to quote from one Christian from here on out, NOT ONE, on this subject matter. These are all scientists, but I want to type it for you
This is the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics, it says this, Energy goes from a higher level of usability, the principal of increasing entropy describes the scientific fact, that the universe is now heading downhill, from prime evil order, to eventual chaos,. Stars and planets disintegrate, organisms die....
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
species become extinct, materials wear out, and order disintegrates in to disorder. In other words. Energy goes from a higher level of usability to a lower level of usability, things wind down, they don t wind up. And see that s a real problem with Evolutionists, because with Evolution we are going from more random to more order. From disorder to order, but scientific law of Entropy says, that we go from order to disorder. Do you understand why that might be a problem? That is a scientific fact. It is in every science book, from junior high to college across the country.
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
we have now found Lucy, we had Neanderthal man, Peltdown man we have all these different things, we now have all these transitional forms. Now Lucy, Australopithecus. The new missing link for human beings.
As I start to go through this, I want you to understand, I am going to quote once again, from Scientists, from Scientists, NOT Christians ..Scientists, You ve heard things like listen, the date of the Earth shows that it is six, or ten or fifteen billion years old. It used to 4.5 but now it s 15 according to Scientists. That s why we know, radiocarbon, radiometric dating, all those things, that s why I believe that Evolution is true, I ve accepted this fact and I have incorporated it into my faith. (Joking)
Let s go through this .Number two reason WE HAVE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. This is by Steven Jay Gould -- He s a professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University. He wrote this. All Paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in....
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." ALSO MACROevolution says we have the ability to change from one species to the next, that s where they come up with that. We came from an Ameba, we grew, dinosaurs turned in to birds, you went from a monkey to a man, this is Macroevolution, one species changing to the next. I think people get confused with Microevolution. Things ADAPT, not change to a different Species. But here s what Jay Gould is saying, we don t have any transitional forms, he goes on to say this, The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. ...
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
Now this is by Colin Patterson the head paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History. Pretty powerful statement. He wrote a book, and in that book he did not put any transitional forms. So a man wrote him a letter saying why didn t you put any transitional forms. This is his letter writing back. "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations ..
Do you understand what he is saying? See this is how they work. They come up with a few bones .in Lucy s elbow, her chin and her nose, about 7 (seven) and all, and then they use a computer to generate what it must of looked like ..based on their imagination.
Colin Patterson is saying, I can t do that, that s not honest. He goes on to say, You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations...
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 3rd, 2007
but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin s authority, but because of my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould (Jay Gould from Harvard) and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils . Now why would two of the world's top Scientists say this about transitional forms, or are you going to say that what Colin Patterson said is of the creationist misquoting him, and I suppose that the creationist's misquoted Steven Gould as well? Hmmm...sounds a bit suspicious to me, if that is the case. I mean suspicious for the people who believe that transitional forms are found, when they only have a few bones.
by JadeEzekiel84 on March 4th, 2007
Jay Gould is bit of an outsider in his thinking about evolution. Many evolutionist disagree with parts of his theories.
by james the first on January 24th, 2008
what proof...put up or shutup...
(forgive the expression, no insult intended)
there has never been a single solitary example of evolutionary advancement in over 100 years of study by thousands upon thousands of the worlds finest scientists performing trillions and trillions of experimental evolutionary cell divisions... not one...funny huh?
by dr james on April 12th, 2008
dr james.
yea but if some random person or "thing" wrote it in a book along time ago and then some random person found it and told everybody it was true because they found it or someone gave it to them that would make it absolutly true ...yea i completly agree...
by Gather ye rose buds while ye may on September 25th, 2008
JadeEzekial - search 'Colin Patterson' on the talkorigins.org site - where he expresses extreme frustration and the very careful, very deliberate misquoting of him (or straight out lying) done by creationists pushing their bizarre, daft barrow.
by Friartuck on September 26th, 2008
Very nice. First answer I saw on here that was totally correct - evolution is not "believed". You may look at the research and agree with its findings, but there is not "believing" involved.
by Anonymous on April 3rd, 2009
I agree. Science and the theory of evolution are allowed to change, improve, delete, reject, etc as new information is found. The history of science and evolution is nearly 100% in a forward direction of more understanding of the world around us. A belief system typically is very hard to change and is not necessarily based on fact or evidence.
by james the first on April 3rd, 2009