What is evolution?

Merry - posted on 07/29/2011 ( 151 moms have responded )

9,274

169

248

I was taught with a Christian curriculum for school so my knowledge of evolution is small. I've heard that evolution means that there was at one point one tiny particle that spontaneously mutated into another particle, or grew or something. And it mutated or grew from a single cell into a type of animal. I think i was told that then this creature turned into some type of fish, then amphibian, then reptile, then bird, then mammal, then ape, then human. I thought this sounded quite ridiculous

Then I was told by another person that evolution means that there was many one cell creatures that each developed differently. One turned into a fish another into reptiles, etc.

But then I constantly heard we evolved from apes. But this makes no sense to me since apes are still here, so how could they turn into humans if they are still apes.

So I'm quite confused as to what people believe about evolution.

And I'm interested in knowing what's been sufficiently proven.

I know it's been proven that the big bang happened to start this all. I personally believe god created the big bang. But is there a non religious belief as to what started the big bang?

I've never had a non Christian class on evolution so I really am not knowledgeable about it at all.

So small words if possible please! Simple concepts would be best too. I just want to understand. So I can hopefully figure out what I believe too.

Don't try to disprove god, just tell me why evolution is believed and what it entails.



This isn't exactly a debate, not in the debating back and forth way, but it is a debatable topic. But I mostly want info, not so much debating.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jenny - posted on 08/01/2011

4,426

16

126

"First scientific theories are NOT facts. If something is a FACT in science, it is called a LAW. eg the second law of thermodynamics.



If evolution was a fact, it would be called the LAW of evolution."



Wrong. A law requires a mathematical equation. Evolution is too broad to be boiled down to one. It will NEVER be a law, even if we had the last billion years recorded to watch it happen.



Evolution IS a fact and if you dispute that, it's because either you don't understand it or are not aware of the facts that back it up. The debate is over, catch up to science.

Jenni - posted on 07/29/2011

5,928

34

373

Yup, that's it in the very basic understanding of evolution... single-celled organisms--->spounge-like creatures--->jellyfish like creatures--->flatworms--->eel-like creatures--->jaw-less fish--->prehistoric fish (with jaws)--->tetrapods (fish with 4 fins)--->amphibians--->reptiles--->Synapsida(true reptiles)--->Mammals (non-primate)
or Birds (which took a different route in the evolutionary road than us. This is where we split apart from birds in the volutionary chain. Some reptiles developed feathers, continued egg laying, eventually evolved into prehistoric birds and then into modern day birds.
Where as some (true reptiles) eventually evolved into warm-blooded mammals--->primates-->homosapiens.

We don't have wings because our evolutionary path never included wings. Winged reptiles eventually evolved into birds. While warm-blooded mammals evolved from a different common ancestor than birds.

Some mammals do fly. Bats. They evolved wings because they were useful for their survival.

Breathing underwater was no longer useful to animals once they began living on the land. Some species remained similar to their original ancestors (amphibians) that can survive both on the land and in the water. The human evolutionary path did not consist of living in the water so gills were bred out. We adapted to our new environment.

Jenni - posted on 07/31/2011

5,928

34

373

I guess I also have faith that I won't float off into space, as gravity is also considered a 'theory'. Or is it an intelligent entity that keeps my feet firmly planted to the ground?

Evolution is as close to *fact* as a theory can possibly get in the science community. Science tends to be humble always leaves room for the possibility of human error. So short of being able to record evolution happening with a time elapsed camera... it will remain a theory. A scientific theory is not the same as a theological theory. Is it requires proof it isn't just a shot in the dark supported by strawmen evidence.

For example, I would like proof that scientists are bickering. Are they bickering, or are they still hammering out the details of macro evolution (which is a scientific theory not a religion, the latter requiring no proof)?
Details... that don't do anything to dispute the ultimate theory.

I am quite surprised that you believe intelligent design is taking off in the science community.... by who? Religious scientists who are trying to prove their belief in a god? I believe what has occured is that scientists admit that they can't rule out the possibility of intelligent design. I don't deny that it can't be ruled out... but nobody is *trying* to rule it out. We are trying to discover the answers to age old questions. How we began. And of course this is where religion and science meet. Science is currently working on the answers and because they haven't discovered them yet, it is assumed by the religious that we haven't discovered them yet because the answer is 'god'?

We have *just started* to make radical discoveries about our universe in the last 20 years. We are just scraping the surface right now. How do you prove the Big Bang? You recreate it. Which is what they're 'working on'. That's the only way a scientific theory can become a fact. If you can recreate it and prove it beyond any shadow of doubt. Even if it is 99.99999999% proveable... it will always remain a scientific theory. Infact most scientists are starting to refer to evolution as fact because the overwhelming amount of validated evidence:

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
" Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."

There isn't more logical evidence. There is a hunch that a higher power was responsible, a belief supported by zero proof. Science will not claim to have an answer until they have that proof. If your idea of logical is that you believe you have an answer where science does not... both sides lack proof. Science is simply humble enough, not to pretend to have an answer when proof is lacking.

As far as your belief that man migrated to north america 4000 (is it?) years ago. Carbon dating and geological evidence does not support that theory.

There is also no proof of an ancient worldwide flood. And the way it was described in the Bible is scientifically, impossible.

Ava - posted on 07/30/2011

307

31

12

Neither of those explanations are true, actually. Since it was explained so well in the first post, I won't bother adding to it. But I will say that it's a fact, and not a 'theory'. Theory in science essentially means fact (gravity is a theory, so is the theory that we revolve around the sun). Evolution is not an opinion, not something to judge whether it's ridiculous or not-- it's not, because it's fact. We have more than enough evidence to conclusively say we evolved from other species, including having found other species of human.



As people discuss snakes, etc, it's important to remember even YOU have vestigial structures. Your tail bone (some humans are still born with tails), your appendix, your tonsils, the bump on the inside of your eye (no, that's not your tear duct; it's a vestigial third eyelid remnant). Even your wisdom teeth are vestigial. Because of evolution, they don't even fit in our jaws (which are now too small) and that's why they're frequently removed.

Jenni - posted on 07/29/2011

5,928

34

373

"The basic theory of evolution is surprisingly simple. It has three essential parts:



•It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.





•The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.





•As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.



­Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This spark of life was the seed of every living thing we see today (as well as those we no longer see, like dinosaurs). That simplest life form, through the processes of mutation and natural selection, has been shaped into every living species on the planet."





That's evolution in nutshell. ;)



This is a link to Darwinism in a nutshell:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science/...

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

151 Comments

View replies by

Maggie - posted on 08/24/2011

818

24

47

dictionary. com says this: a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development.

So here's the thing. I am Christian. I also belive in evolution. Evolution as it is described above says that things change. Through selective breeding you can come up with a new "species". For example, horses. They take the smallest male dog and breed it with the smallest female dog. Then they breed those offspring with other dogs that are the smallest of their litters. After a few generations you have tiny dogs - like teacup sized. It's still the same kind of dog but it's different.
I also think this - A long long time ago when (let's say for example) monkeys lived in trees there was plenty of food. They hung out eating bananas all day long. Then, something happened to the bananas - there weren't enough to go around. Now the monkies had to find something else to eat or they were going to die! Some stayed in the trees to see if the bananas would come back (they died) and others jumped down to the ground and found some potato plants. Well, you have to dig for potatoes so the monkies that had the best ability to dig for potatoes got to eat, the ones that couldn't got only what was left over, if anything at all. So the digging ones became dominant (maybe their hands were bigger or their fingernails were longer, whatever - it's just an imaginary example). The females will breed with the dominant males to produce monkies that are good diggers. The ones that aren't born with the trait that makes them more able to get food will either die or won't breed. So it's not that all of a sudden all monkies turned into something else - it's that by selective breeding they produced a digging monkey instead of a monkey that swings from vines.
In the case of "there are still monkies so how could we have come from them?" - perhaps the bananas did come back. Those monkies would survive to eat bananas and the others would be just fine digging for potatoes. They would split from their original "family" to produce a new one.
You can see evidence of this all over - animals will adapt to their surroundings. If they don't they will die and that species will be extinct.
You can do selective breeding with plants, too. Ever had a plumquat? a tangelo? Heard of anyone breeding a new kind of flower? That's "evolution" by definition, even if it is helped along by us.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

4,426

16

126

"But why did the others speices not develop social and organizational tools, complex brains and an erect body design if that is the superior evolutionary design. Why just us? The "edge" that we had over other species like dolphins in your example is not applicable to gorillas. So why did one species branch of into gorillas from the common ancestor instead of just multiplying into humans."

The random genetic mutations may not have occured in those species that allowed us to reach the advancements we have. Evolution will continue to occur, in a few million years perhaps they will be where we are now.

Jenni - posted on 08/23/2011

5,928

34

373

I actually used the analogy of Civilizations (as a joke) to my husband to explain the riots. That's what happens when you don't give your people enough spirits, incense and silk! (luxuries) :P

Jenni - posted on 08/23/2011

5,928

34

373

Dude. No Krista. I love civilizations!! Wow. That game is intense, I've used the analogy of Civilizations to explain a lot of things. Truly, an indepth and intricate game. It's funny that i've learned so much from that RPG on politics, war, civilization advancements. That game totally blows my mind. hahah

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

I don't think so Krista, you can see in the earlier posts how I feel about this. But to sum it up, Biblical accounts of Creation follow the same timline as the theory of Evolution. So they aren't comtradictory but rather they can be viewed as complementary. theistic Evolution says that God set evolution in motion.

For example, rocks are inorganic matter right? If there wasn't somthing or some deity to set evolution in motion then the theory is that inorganic matter formed into organic life. Which science has proved is impossible. A rock can't spontaneously come to life.

With that in mind, I don't think that evolution discounts the existence of God but merely shows another view of how God could have created ife on Earth.

Krista - posted on 08/23/2011

12,562

16

842

@Jennifer: It's kind of like when you're playing Civ, and you unlock one technology, which allows you to research about 5 or 6 other technologies that you couldn't research before. :)

yes, I'm a geek.

Krista - posted on 08/23/2011

12,562

16

842

As founder of the evolution theory Darwin was not an atheist, he was agnostic so I do think it's biast for atheists to use evolution to explain away the non-existence of God.

It's kind of hard not to, however. A big component of belief in God is belief in Creation. Adam and Eve, and all that good stuff.

And evolution completely contradicts the idea that this deity just created human beings and POOF! There stood modern man (and modern woman.)

So by contradicting the Biblical story of creation, then it's kind of difficult to not take that to mean that hey, if the most important thing that this god ever allegedly did is actually not true, then doesn't that put a big old dent into the idea of there actually BEING a God?

Jenni - posted on 08/23/2011

5,928

34

373

So to sum it up, my basic understanding is our species 'snowballed'. With each adaptation, advantage, new skills opened more and more doors for our species.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

haha! No one is taking me seriously on the implication that creationists have a museum. I know i'm half joking but its all these supposed "scientisist" that fuel the way creationists think and its quite extraordinary when you're under their spell.
But anyway, i'm off for now. Good night.

Jenni - posted on 08/23/2011

5,928

34

373

We became more adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization than other primates. Through natural selection, I imagine.

It's sort of like asking, 'why did some dinosaurs evolve wings and were able to survive the mass extinction when their other dinosaur relatives, did not." We just happen to be the most specialized of species. If not us, than another species would more than likely replace us.



If you go back in homosapien history, 200 000 years to the first appearance of homosapiens... they weren't very different from other animals. They had primitive language skills, primitive tool weilding skills, primitive social structure. We would have been quite comparable to Chimpanzee tribes with the exception of a few advantages/skills. It wasn't until 60 000 years ago that we became modern homosapiens in full behavioural modernity.



So short answer, evolution and natural selection and superior specializations led us to dominate the planet. I can't provide a philosophical reason for you, as in 'why us?'

For me, by chance we were born into the most advanced species on the planet.



Now why did we surpass gorillas/chimps who share similar adaptations?

It could be the littliest thing like diet that can cause a species to evolve or advance past similar species. One theory is that homosapiens' ancestors diet consisted of a lot of fish (where as other primates did not). The omega-3 in fish could have 'boosted' brain power. Geographical locations can effect change in a species causing certain species to advance, remain neutral or go extinct. Little things like stumbling on the use of fire of tool open up a world of doors and possibilities for a species. So all these little 'advantages' caused our species to evolve to modern humans today. With each new advantage opening up a world of opportunites.



Well perhaps I can answer that question by comparing the two species of great apes:

Chimps and gorillas are omnivores. Highly adaptable. Highly social. Are capable of complex thought. Can think about the future. Can use tools. Have organizational skills.



So what is one thing that I can see that set the species apart. That could cause one species to advance and evolve more than the other?



Diet, body structure, disposition-



Although they are both omnivores, gorillas protein diet consists mainly of insects. Whereas chimps will hunt large game.



This is probably due to their body structure. Chimps being the more agile of the two. Gorillas being more cumbersome. Chimps can climb trees efficiently. Gorillas prefer to stay on the ground.



Disposition, chimps tend to be more aggressive.



So aggressive, agile, and a diet that includes other monkeys seperates chimps from gorillas. More protein, more brain power. The need to hunt will lead to more complex language and organizational skills. Which is probably similar to how humans honed their language and organizational skills.



So who is likely to advance further as a species between the two. I'm going to bet my money on the chimps. They have as close to our recipe for modernity out of any species.



I suggest reading the Origin of Man. Or look for the footnotes for a better understanding on how we as a species evolved to be more complex than other animals.

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

I am glad I could help Jenny. My goal was never to change anyone's mind but to help open their eyes to the possibility. I appreciate the kind comments.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

P.S nikki i think that your fetus analogy topped my day in terms or revelation so thank you!
Gone is the thinking of "but how could all of creation come from single cell organisms?" well i never stopped to seriously ask "but how could a human come from one single cell?" I may have marveled at it, but even though I may not be able to explain it in words i know for a fact that it's true :)

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

I agree Jenny. Sorry about the alien thing History channel has this Ancient Aliens show and there are a lot of those people out there. I am sure they would all go to the museum. LOL

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

rofl. but who would pay to visit it? ;P
As founder of the evolution theory Darwin was not an atheist, he was agnostic so I do think it's biast for atheists to use evolution to explain away the non-existence of God.

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

You are so right Krista! If you had the money you could open up a museum saying that we were brought here by aliens and are really just livestock for them to harvest with UFOS. LOL

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

No not taking anything personally. Just clarifying my stance. I used to think that I was one of a few that believed the way I do. But since doing more research I have found there are many of us out there. But whether you believe in theistic evolution or special creation, we will still be questioned on it and persecuted to an extent, because some evolutionists use the theory as a basis for their atheism and it threatens their beliefs to think that God could have had a hand in it. So I think that the debate will continue no matter what proof is out there either way.

Krista - posted on 08/23/2011

12,562

16

842

To a non believer that is laughable but to a believer it makes us think we must have a leg to stand on the whole science game to be able to open up our own museum. Surely we couldn't have conceived a museum on creationism out of thin air & faith?

Sure you could have. If you've got the funding (and goodness knows they certainly did!), you can open up a museum about any cockamamie belief. As long as it's not libelous, you can get interpretive displays created to explain every last aspect of your belief system, no matter how far-fetched.

Museum does not automatically = factual legitimacy

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

Nikki please don't take any comment i make here personally. I appreciate your patience and the time you took to answer my questions. Sorry if i made you feel otherwise.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

Hey Jennifer, just found your post with your explanation, whoops missed it before. But why did the others speices not develop social and organizational tools, complex brains and an erect body design if that is the superior evolutionary design. Why just us? The "edge" that we had over other species like dolphins in your example is not applicable to gorillas. So why did one species branch of into gorillas from the common ancestor instead of just multiplying into humans.

Also, if any one is interested in why belief in God and evolution don't quite add up as nicely as we would like it to, here's a link. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

that is free will though. We are able to think critically and abstractly to come to a conclusion or solution. I am merely stating my viewpoint in hopes of helping you to reconcile your beliefs.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

I find that even then, if you go back and consult it again you may come to a different conclusion from your original conclusions. It feels like one can never come to an actual "conclusion" as the possibilities of conclusions never end! IMO anyway.

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

I understand Jenny. The thing about reading the Bible is that it is a study. You have to consult it multiple times to come to a conclusion.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

Interesting. I have no comment as I would need to consult the original Hebrew to ensure that is the correct meaning from that text :P

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

Right Jennifer. I struggle to understand the correlaitons for a long time, but after analyzing and comparing the two, you can't dispute the similarities.

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

i believe the second "timeline" yourefer to is Genesis 2:17-19. I dont think that is a timeline for Creationbut rather an explanation of God bringing the animals into Eden to live under the stewardship of Adam. The chronology here suggests that Adam was brought into Eden before the animals of the earth but not that he was created before them.

Jenni - posted on 08/23/2011

5,928

34

373

Nikki, I always thought that was sort of neat. The creation story does sound a bit like evolution condensed. I also found it neat that 'God' even talks about the evolution of a species. The legged snake turning into a legless snake. (according to evolution; modern snakes evolved from a 4 legged variety of snake).

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

Depends on whether one believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Also within the first two chapters of Genesis there are two chronological orders to how things were made. One where it places man made after the animals were created and one where it places the man before they were created.

Jenni - posted on 08/23/2011

5,928

34

373

Hey Jenny, I see you decided to pick the ladies brains here on evolution. ;) Better them than me. I really only know the HS G-rated version of evolution and what I've had dumbed down for me documentaries, programs and web surfing. lol



I'll try my best to answer your question on why humans appear to be so much further advanced in intelligence and technology.

For one, there are species close in intelligence to us. I'll use great apes as an example.

I believe, from what I learned about koko the gorilla (the sign language gorilla) that gorillas have the intellectual level of a 5 year old human child. So they are fairly close in intellegence, if not overlapping our intellectual level.

But Dolphins, according to scientists, are second to humans in intelligence. So much so they should be treated as 'non-human persons':

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/sc...

So why don't gorillas/chimps/parrots/dolphins etc. have hospitals, ipods, and sky scrapers?



Well, we had many edges over other animals that gave us the advantage.

a) our highly developed brain-capable of abstract reasoning, introspection and language

b) erect body carriage that frees our upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species.

c) Our sociability and oganizational skills

These were the recipe for us to surpass our animal cousins in complexity.



Those are the basics that allowed us to start our journey to the top of the food chain. Language is vital, and our complex language allows us to bounce ideas off one another, build on those ideas, learn from others through language and eventually learn to record our ideas. This allowed future generations to build on those ideas and advance. And the rest, is history....

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

All of the data is there. The development has to take place though. I would have to say it is also true for the common ancestor. there are always changes and mutations, even in the developments of some babies. But the basis for the information is there.

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

@Jenny-

God is all knowing and ever present. Does it not speak to his power to think that he set evolution into motion?

In Genesis,
Day 1- God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darknes was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved across the face of the water.And God said let there be light and there was light. And God saw that the light was good: and God divided the Light from te Darkness.
(God created the planet, planted the seeds of life in the oceans, and set the Earth into motion. Most scientists who believe in evolutionary theory believe that life began in the waters, without the rotation of the earth it would not be conducive to life all over the planet because of the temperature diffferences.)

Day 2- God created Heaven ( the firmament above the Earth. Where all of the stars and celestial bodies are)

I could go on but the basis of this is to show that Genesis shows the same timeline as the theory of eveolution just in a condensed form that is based on faith instead of research and inference.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

I like the fetus development analogy. Does the one embryo cell contain all the "data" it needs in order to become the multi cell human baby at the end of the 9 months? And if so is that also true of the common ancestor? Does it have the DNA data to become what it has today or does it gain that data over time? If that even makes any sense? lol

Nikki - posted on 08/23/2011

401

37

27

Think of it this way. All primates (monkeys, apes, humans) have acommon ancestor. Over time changes in that ancestors ways of life and environment caused different adaptations and genetic changes. This helped the new species to live better in its new environment or circumstances.

It works in much the same way that fetal development does just on a much larger and slower scale.

an embryo starts out as one cell. It divides and develops different types of stem cells. These stem cells have the ability to become many different kinds of cells. Some become skin, some bone, others smooth (organ) muscle, etc. Even though each cell has its own properties and job, they all developed from one common cell.

Every species is different but they all have one common ancestor.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

I know none of it makes sense, but there are people that believe in creationist evolution wholeheartedly. I just got a response from a christian community on here that I should seek guidance in Answersingenesis website and that i should visit the Creationist museum! To a non believer that is laughable but to a believer it makes us think we must have a leg to stand on the whole science game to be able to open up our own museum. Surely we couldn't have conceived a museum on creationism out of thin air & faith? I'm thinking that like a liquor store you'd need a license to open up a museum and must have something substantial to put in it? This stuff is just crazy.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

I currently am so confused i dont know what i believe. I want to believe in God and the Bible as that's what i've known all my life. I think I would like to believe that the bible is on all accounts true and factual and inerrent. Otherwise how could it be the inspired word of God that provides truth and direction? If the bible is the word of God then it must be 100% even if it was humans that wrote it as they were directly inspired by God to do so. So on that basis i would say that it is 100%. I'm finding it hard to say that its 100% factual. But if i believe in an Omniscient God then it is meant to be 100% factual.

I hear what your saying about the lack of fossil evidence.

[deleted account]

Why are not all species evolved the same way as humans? I don't know. I'm hesitant however to say that teh fairies did it for the same reason I'm hesistant to say a goddidit.

Just curious Jenny, do you truly believe the bible is 100% factual for the entire thing? Including say the Tower of Babel and Job?

[deleted account]

"So the article admits that "the fossil record is problematic"."

Are you aware of why it's problematic? Let's say that the entire human race just dropped dead right now. Every single human being on the planet, no exceptions. There would be very little fossil evidence of our existence because the vast majority of us will not die in area/conditions conducive to fossilization. That's why we don't have fossils for every dinosaur that ever walked the earth. However to deny what we do know from fossils and more importantly from DNA would be the same to deny that humans ever existed when the insect race examines our remains 10,000 years from now.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2011

842

5

24

Okay, another naive thought that popped into my head is, why did not all the species evolve to be as intelligent and complex as we are? Why, if we came from a common ancestor, did one species evolve into apes and the other into humans instead of all evolving into humans (supposing that apes are inferior to humans)?

Johnny - posted on 08/22/2011

8,686

26

318

I think you have answered your own question, "though it was quickly exposed as a fraud." Of course there is all sorts of this type of thing. But the fossil evidence is subject to vigorous testing by a number of scientists from various disciplines. Unless they are all collaborating on some sort of giant multi-generational, multi-national hoax, this argument is a complete strawman.



Not to mention all of the other "non-fossil" evidence for evolution which supports the fossil evidence....

Jenny - posted on 08/22/2011

842

5

24

Another "naive" question i have is "what if these fossils are a fraud"? I.e here's an excerpt from a christian author about a transitional fossil of Archaeoraptor found in 1999.
"The scientific community (including National Geographic) proclaimed that they had found the "missing link" between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds, though it was quickly exposed as a fraud. A Chinese farmer had glued together the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur."
Apparently these frauds were a regular occurrence over the past 150 years.

Jenny - posted on 08/22/2011

842

5

24

:) I'm taking that one up in Christian mommies on circle of moms, see what I get from that community.

I agree with you that scientists are not out there to prove anything to theists. Heck, just read Darwin's book on origin of species and you can see how much he wanted to believe in God, but was discovery evidence to the contrary (well somewhat). Even he could not go as far as to become atheist and instead he remained an agnostic. So no i don't believe in any conspiracy theory about scientists being out to get the Christian God ;)

Johnny - posted on 08/22/2011

8,686

26

318

I would suggest that those Christians who call themselves Christians while supporting the theory of evolution would simply differ with your definition of what a Christian is. I have observed that the majority of Christians do not believe that the bible is a literal word-for-word document. However, not being a Christian myself, I'll let you debate that with someone who cares.

Johnny - posted on 08/22/2011

8,686

26

318

My links are from (in order of appearance):

Scientific American Magazine
Yale University
University of California Berkley
PBS - Nova
Tufts University
Brown University
Princeton University
The Smithsonian Institute
Science Daily (internet magazine on peer-reviewed Science academia)
NASA

There are plenty of pseudo-scientists, bloggers, first year university science majors, and all other form of opinion about evolution on the internet. Many that support it. But if you really want to learn about it, you might as well look at information from the scientists who study it and analyze the evidence themselves. Not someone looking to fulfill an agenda.

Evolutionists do not equal atheists. Many Christians are evolutionists. As I said before, evolution does not disprove the existence of a god. Not at all.

Some people who believe in evolution may believe that everything came from nothing. Others may believe that god created the universe, they may even believe that god guides evolution. Some evolutionists might believe that we have always existed. As I said before, you are confusing evolution with the origin of the universe. They are two entirely different areas of study.

As for it being biased to Christianity, it may appear that way. Scientific research has not shown the story of creation as it appears in the bible, or any other major religious creation story, to be at all demonstrated by the evidence.

Scientists are not out to disprove Christian ideas. They are simply asking a question and searching for the available information/evidence/data that will provide some answers. Physical science is designed to limit the ability of scientists to force a preferred outcome. Peer-review, repetition, and other "regulations" come together to "police" the scientific process.

Evolution can not support the biblical creation story because the evidence that has been uncovered in geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and other fields in no way points to it having happened.

Jenny - posted on 08/22/2011

842

5

24

Also while Yes people claim to be Christians and believe in evolution all at the same time, its not possible to be a fundamentalist Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. I.e you cannot believe in an inerrant bible and evolution because the Genesis account of how the earth was created does not agree with evolution. And its only through making assumptions that we can coincide the bible with evolution. I.e maybe God made the earth old? For God one day could stand to be a million years? or that Between Adam and the flood there could be millions of years? enough time for evolution to take place. Theories like that just don't add up with a literal interpretation of the bible. And if we're not taking the bible literally then we don't see it as the inerrant word of God and i find it hard to reconcile that with belief in God in the first place.

Jenny - posted on 08/22/2011

842

5

24

Just skimming through them (human fossils) just wondering shouldn't there be more of the same fossils? Why are we only finding a few of each stage, shouldn't there be a whole lot of them? Or was the population of the *human* race so little that we can only uncover in some case one fossil?

Jenny - posted on 08/22/2011

842

5

24

Thank you for all those links Johnny. If all those are from credible sources then I must say that I have seen something special today and maybe even learned from it. Ta.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms