I see stupid things like “If evolution is real, then why are there still monkey? Shouldn’t they have evolved into humans by now?” Really? For those of you who don’t know, back in the day, before Darwin, people believed in “The Chain of Creation” (or something along that line) it had humans at the top and all the lower animals below, so it was basically saying that humans were the pinnacle of creation. Well that’s not how evolution works. About 5 million of years ago humans and chimpanzees diverged (think, a fork in the road). We became what we are today because for us brain power was important, chimpanzees went where they are because that worked for them. Its what’s called a “Niche” its where an organism does best (like a carpenter or a painter, they do best in those jobs, so they stay there).
Also evolution does not say that an organism has to constantly change “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” an organism only changes if its niche changes or is destroyed, then-hopefully for the organism-a mutation will acer that will allow it to survive, if not then it will become extinct.
Now if you want to know all the details read “On the origin of species by way of natural selection” by Charles Darwin, or another book on the mechanics of evolution.
Categorized | Affiliate Marketing 101
Christians, How Many Of You Actually Know What Evolution Says?
Posted on April 30, 2011.
I do, but that was my field in college.
I don’t know much about human development though, which is why I want to know, if adults developed from babies, why are there still babies.
I wonder how many Christians will read this, and then, frightened, close the page and cry under their desks, curled up into little balls, rocking back and forth.
Um, yes. Most of us do. That’s why Creationists are actually in the minority of Christians these days.
i love you man i h8 when people throw that question at me now i can answer it
I understand it a lot better than most people who claim to believe evolution on YA.
If more people understood the claims (and flaws) of evolution then more people would reject it as unscientific just-so stroies.
The word evolution has many meanings. In the broadest sense it is the secular creation story and includes the Big Bang, stellar evolution, abiogenesis (first life forming from non-life), and the arising of all life forms on earth from the first life form. It is also used to mean simply natural selection – finches beaks, peppered moths, etc.
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.
So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.
In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
Evolution must explain how there has been a vast net increase in genetic information. It is alleged that mutations add information. This is not the case. All observed mutations are either information neutral of lossy. Mutations clearly do not drive evolution.
In reality Natural Selection acts to weed out mutations, which are usually harmful.http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-c…
When evolutionists state that evolution is a ‘law’ or is ‘proven’, they invariably mean natural selection. We all agree on that. The examples they give are finches beaks, peppered moths, etc. These examples are selection and variation, and never examples of increasing genetic complexity or increasing information.
It suits the philosophical/religious purposes of evolutionists to pretend that there is no distinction between natural selection and evolution. “Evolution is just NS plus time” they may claim. but time is the enemy, as we can see. Our gene pool has an increasing number of mutations which cause terrible genetic diseases.
Goebbels (Nazi Propaganda Minister) said “A lie told often enough becomes truth”
The whole hypothesis of Evolution is itself based on unobservable events, happening in unobservable past and most of it especially Chemical Evolution deny experimental reality.
One could easily say that Evolution is the Science of Fiction.
“Yes, we are all animals, descendants of a vast lineage of replicators sprung from primordial pond scum.”
What this leads to is aptly shown by this dialog between two evolutionists. Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent Darwinist and atheist:
Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”
And there is this :
Richard Dawkins on Evolution
“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
(www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript…
Now this is the truth and you have no logical alternative but to accept that Jesus is God:
“I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.
You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. “
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
Col 2:9 (NIV)
From what I’ve studied of evolution and many others have, there are flaws. The problem is as you back track far enough you will find gaps in it that have not filled yet. While some has been proven and most of it make logical sense. The fact is that the gaps that are still there and where it all began is still just an idea that can’t be proven.
I know I do and probably about 700 other people that I know, personally
Evolution is the dumbest theory on earth. When the Bible was taken out of public schools in 1963 SAT scores dropped like crazy. Evolution teaches that humans are animals and then they wonder why kids act like animals. Once you teach that you are nothing but a whole bunch of chemicals put together, that causes kids to not care about their morals. So if it feels good do it.
Evolution is a religion because no one has ever seen evolution happen their are a whole bunch of missing links in the evolution theory. You have to believe that evolution happened.
Why should public school teach evolution when everyone knows that their is no empirical evidence
evolution has never been observed Evolution has 6 meanings
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”
Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science. For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400± varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn. There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related! Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening. Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science. Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense.
the theory of evolution claims we evolved from another creature
We know what the evolution theory says, that’s why we are not evolutionists.