Is there a logical argument against evolution?
440358
No.\n\nSchneb is being purposefully deceiving by quoting Darwin out of context.  Isn't that on a par with lying?\n\nEbertis should read a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer.  In it, he gives very good explanations of how intelligent people can deceive themselves into believing something very wrong.  He should also know that Behe has been thoroughly debunked and for facts and evidence he should take a look at talkorigins.org.\n\nFor those of you who defend "intelligent design," maybe you should take a look at this question:\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsLJbgNxwECve8d_AOzB.wfsy6IX?qid=1006042026788\n\nSecretsauce got it right away.
340615
Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven, in fact most evidence proves otherwise. A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory. I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution because there isn't enough evidence to support it. Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle
789435
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..
260278
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
346820
No. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp:/
881611
Evolution is a fact, backed up by science. God is a hypothesis, 'backed-up' by the bible. The problem is that the bible is not backed-up by anything.
755030
Technically, and scientifically it is a theory. Theory doesn't  mean that it isn't true though, it simply means it is the most widely accepted opinion of the scientific community until someone can come along with a better theory or disprove the theory.\n\n"God created Us" is not a scientifically accepted proof against the theory of evolution. This is because without evolution DNA mutation makes no sense, even though it is a well observed phenomena.\n\nFossils also would have no explanation.\n\nAnd as a teacher, it would be best to say that it is okay to not believe every theory, because many past theorems have been proved wrong, but that he or she should maybe look into evolution a little more before casting a judgement.
408718
Why not both? They are not mutually exclusive. By making me choose between the two you are creating a false paradox. I could believe in God and Evolution or none of the above.\n\nAlso asking people if they believe in Evolution is like asking if they believe in gravity. It's a scientific fact, things evolve. However, the idea that life arose through evolution is an accepted theory but not totally a fact. So if you make me choose between the two I have to pick evolution because it's definately true.
569372
Rejecting the idea of God and rejecting God are to separate things.  Rejecting an idea doesn't prove existence.  I am sure that you reject evolution, so does that prove its existence?  I admire your effort and desire for apologetics, however I cant jump on board with your theory.  Good luck and God Bless.
729212
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
749633
Here is my evaluation based on logic\nArgument 1 Creation.\nPremise 1: true\nPremise 2: true\nPremise 3: true\nConclusion: logically flows from premises 1 to 3, so valid.\n\nArgument 2 Evolution.\nPremise 1: true\nPremise 2: true\nPremise 3: true if that site's proofs are true.\n\nConclusion: logically flows from premise 1 to 3 ( except you have to add the words: "and many are fascinated by evolution); so yes, your conclusion is Valid. \n\nBoy, you must be good in your logic class!
71790
technically speaking, we use reason and logic before we believe. After all, reason and logic are mental processess which re- or deconstructs information before we accept it. The talibans believe that their code is only logical and reasonable, even if we do not. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is also logical and reasonable based on evidences, but many still do not believe in it. So perhaps, there is a vague line between them. Howver, which will you ACCEPT? believing without logic and reason, or reasoning without believing?
681839
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
304551
Tell you what.  Spend six weeks in a biology lab with some species with very short life/reproductive cycles--say, drosophila or flatworms--and they'll be your witnesses to evolution.  Is it easy to argue against the existence of something one can actually see happening in front of one?  For example, how do you explain the constant mutation of the flu virus.  It's not a point of theory--it's an observable fact.  So, how does that happen, if there's no evolution?  You see my point:  we don't need "witnesses," because we have real empirical evidence.\n\nBut in any case, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe.  There is room both for your cosmology and for mine in the world.\n\nWhat does matter is what is taught in school.  As of yet, right-wing Christian evangelicals have not succeeded in imposing their particular worldview on the entire country by changing our laws into Evangelical Christian shariah, and our schools into Evangelical Christian madrassas, despite their repeated efforts.  Until that time, it does matter that science, not religion, is what we study in science class.\n\nBy the way, try reading other eye-witness accounts to the creation of the world.  Upon what basis, other than your community's belief, is your religious creation myth more demonstrably true than that of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Baha'is, Jains, etc.?  Show me the legitimate, objective, neutral, non-theological criteria that proves your book's eyewitness account more true than theirs, and you might have made a real point.  Until then, not really.\n\n(By the way, any answer that says the Bible has the true answer "because the Bible says so" would not count as a reason outside your faith system.  I'm not saying you're wrong--just that that's not science.)
471387
Theory is theory, period.  Which one you accept should be a choice, not programming.  \n\nInsisting on an evolutionary theory which precludes the existence of God IS theology, because it makes assumptions about something that is not observable, testable, or repeatable.  In the marketplace of ideas, any time one group claims autonomy of intelligence, then intellectual dictatorship follows, and people soon forget how to think and reason for themselves -- they become societal automatons, incapable of doing anything more than following the crowd.\n\nThe puppets of bad science continue to spout the doctrine of "DNA", not even understanding for themselves that micro-evolution at the DNA level does not alter the length of the DNA strand, and that there is absolutely NO PROOF that DNA can or ever has "evolved" from one strand length into another, substantiating the claim that every DNA strand length which is in existence today was also in existence at the origin of species, pointing directly to intelligent design, and therefore a Designer.\n\nBottom line, when interpreting evidence for the purpose of supporting a theory, GOOD SCIENCE DEMANDS that ALL possible interpretations be presented, and that opposing theories which they support should also be discussed, but NO THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT DOGMATICALLY!  It is our individual right and obligation to choose our own beliefs.\n\n(Rant over!)
229992
Yes.  It is typically taught as fact.  In reality evolution should not even be classified as a theory, as it has never gotten out of the hypothesis stage.
1021262
There is ample physical evidence that proves that evolution has taken place and continues to take place to shape the development and genetic variability of life on this planet.  \n\nSo evolution definitely exists.\n\nThe fact that evolution exists, however, does NOT mean that god does not exist.\n\nIf you believe in god (I don't, but evolutionary biology has no part in that belief), then there is no reason that god cannot be the hidden driving force behind the physical laws of the universe that work together to cause biological evolution to take place, and eventually lead to the evolution of sentient creatures such as human beings who are capable of a measure of understanding of god's universe.\n\nThe only discrepancy between a belief in god and an understanding of biological evolution is reconciling the hard, verifiable evidence of geology and paleontology with a literalist, fundamentalist reading of the first two chapters of Genesis.\n\nIt is only if you insist that Genesis MUST be absolutely, physically true that there is any conflict between the two.  Note that a literalist reading of Genesis also requires that the Earth be flat.  \n\nJust as the fact that the Earth is round doesn't disprove the existence of god, the fact that evolution occurs and has occurred to form the diversity of life seen today does not disprove god's hand in that process.