Evolution questions? short answers:?
541368
1. I don't think there was air.\n2. I don't know.\n3. Probably not.\n4. Probably.\n5. Neither?\n5. I think so.\n6. No idea.\n\nI am not sure about any of my answers. Based on what I believe.
297539
First, you need to define evolution.  You're talking about micro evolution which has no problems with Christianity.  When you start getting into macro, stellar, cosmic and chemical evolution, we've got problems.\n\nIf the ebola virus evolved, it evolved from another virus.  That is micro evolution.  Macro evolution says that that process is evidence that a virus can turn into a dog over time.  This is where you're getting into religious faith and not science.  \n\nThere are hundereds of different breeds of dogs to include wolves and foxes, etc.  Micro evolution says that all those breeds of dogs came from a common ancestor...a dog.  Again, no problem with Christianity.\nMacro evolution will say that the dogs, cats, birds, snakes, plants, blah, blah, all came from a common ancestor.  That's ludicrous and severely contradicts the bible.\n\nNow, as far as your question about before the fall of man...\nGod told Adam that if they ate of the fruit, they would die.  We know that they didn't drop dead on the spot, so what did He mean?  He meant that they would change world events to bring death into the world.\n\nThe world event that possibly changed all of this was the flood.  When man knowingly was sinful (because of Adam), God had to destroy the world (death from the sin of Adam).  Before the flood, the earth had much different living conditions than we do today.  There was the protective canopy of water around the earth that made it paradise.  It increased the oxygen and air pressure to double, it blocked UV rays and had many other benefits.  This is how people were able to live to be 900 years old.\nIt's possible that viruses and other diseases started forming after that protective canopy was gone.  Add in man's industrial chemicals and we've got a recipe for disaster.\nThere was research done with poisonous snakes.  They put the snakes in a hyperbaric chamber and pumped the air pressure to double.  The snakes came out non-poisonous.  How was the world before the flood?  We can't know for sure, but some amazing scientific research has been done on this topic.\n\nAnother possibility is that many viruses were always there, but was just recently released because we went into the rain forest and started cutting down trees.  If it was locked in its environment before and we released it, then it didn't evolve, it was discovered.\n\nYou should check out www.drdino.com and download the seminar titled "The garden of Eden".  It will explain these things in much greater detail.
328565
GOD!!! its the only reason that never changes! evolution has changed many times && no one has been able to prove evolution right. but read the bible!! theres your eyewitness
351989
you basically want to say which species evolved first.\n\nTry this website...it might give you some ideas\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
350652
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
294512
There is a tailbone in humans which is redundant, just like an appendix. Appendix has use for animals in digesting raw food. People stopped eating raw food, making it redundant. \nIf you check the ancient drawings, ancient humans had a lot of body hair, but as humans evovled, the hair became less.\n\nTo the person above - Neanderthal, Cro-magnan, Homo-erectus fossils are what you can call a "Transitional" fossil to prove evolution.\n\nTo the person who asked the question - Mutation, adaptation and evolution are inter-linked. Monkeys did not evolve into humans overnight. Or it wasnt a case that monkeys gave birth to humans suddenly. Adaptations and mutation over generations results into evolution. In fact you can say that Mutation and adaptations are preliminary steps of evolution.\n\nTo hutsong - Evolution is how life evolved from primitive life form into the current species. It, in no way speaks how life was created in the first way.\nAlso you talk about experiments in labs have proved that one life-form can not evolve into a different life-form. Heres a  question for you - How many years are these laboratories set up for? If the answer is less than 500 years, then its not enough time frame for any evolution to be seen.\nAlso you are giving links to a website which can is run by christains who are staunch opponnents of evolution not scientifically but religiously. So that has no weight at all. Maybe links to magazines like Science or Nature would have been more convincing.\n\nThumbs up to emilyrose!!
1154023
That response from gimpalomg was kinda disrespectful. Evolution is a waste of time. It tries to disprove something that cannot be disproved. Evolution is baseless, unfounded and a big scientific hoax to sway believers into thinking that science answers such questions. Evolution is circular reason. You say the earth couldn't possibly be 10000 years old max, I ask why, u'd probably bring up some evolution based theory that attemot to explain away the truth, which is the bible, but for now, I won't be forcing those doctrines down ur throat =D. \n\nThibnk about the bible for a second. The flood would explain so many things that science fails to answer such as the extinction of dinasuars, they're too big to fit on an arc.  Bare in mind that dinasuars are simply reptiles we see tody except that everything had the ability to live longer, if you want to explore that theory look it up because I promised not to use circular reasoning. the flood would explain why fish remains are ound on every mountain peak. It would explain why there was a "nomadic" time period in that time. And sooo obvious to us, it would explain what the heck a huuuge arc is doing on mount Ararat, which by the way was picke dup by NASA satellites. It should be noted that the bible states that Noah's arc rested atop mount Ararat. \n\nLastly, Evolution should not be in text books. The theory is warped an d blown aout of proprtion. I believe there are six major theories that compose the entire science of evolution. Only 1 uno theory hasbeen proved. That theory is microevolution which states that some organisms have the power to make themselves evolve MINOR CHANGES i.e Darwin's discovery of natural selection (longer beaks vs. shorter beaks etc.). This is GREAT, sure, except that the other theories cannot be proven but some have been disproven, there's something they don't always include in text books. Macroevolution which is the level above Microevolution comprises of the theory that species make huge changes over time such as extra limbs, DNA changes etc, again, not proven, even disproven by "vestigial" organs... aren't we supposed to evolve by GAINING other parts, not losing them. Buut scioentiest insist on using vestigial organs as the tailbone... guess WHAT ppl, it's not vestigial; you try walking around without it then try calling ir vestigial ,it serves a purpose. &#92;\n\non to the whole age thing. The earth is more likely to be 10000 years max than millions. According to the evolutionary theory, dinasuars became extinct MILLIONS of years ago. How much time does it take for flesh to decompose? I'm thinking FAR less than a million years. Why then are red blood cells still being found in dinasuar remains? The best answer is that the earth could NEVER be nearly as old as we think it is. I also want to point out thaT the earth is usually dated by ratioactive dating, which, in itself, is VERY unreliable. Research Radioactive dating accuracy and find the fact. The dates are beyond the level of being off, scientists know this. All they do is find a formula which is closest to the actual date even if it is millions of years inaccurate. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. \n\nEvolution is something that has been put in textbooks to simply explain away religious doctrines they feel are impossible. If you do your research like I did, you will easly see that evolution is no more true than Roman mythology\n\nAnd one dangerous thing we seem to be doing. The bible is NOT all symbolic.  That is REALLY dangerous. If i told u that the wings of the eagle stretched far beyond my reach then went on to recap yesterdays events, would you beleive that all of what I said was symbolic. How symbolic can anything be. The bible is literal at times. If you want to read the prophecies in the bible about the establishment of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the aliance os powers against Israel and it literally being sur
409502
You are right.\n\nCenturion: I hope that you only are asking this question sarcastically, in order to give an example of the silly questions that creationists ask, so nobody has to explain that obviously species take separate evolutionary paths, based on their environment, so that the same species in different environments will eventually evolve into different species.\n\nUnknown: What do you mean by a fossil of a creature turning into something else?  That doesn't really make much sense, seeing how all creatures are in the process of turning into "something else" - we just don't know what the future of evolution holds.  Haven't you heard about the recent discovery of the fossil of the "fish" which helps to provide evidence of the transition of animals from water to land?  I don't really know what you mean by saying that there are no "missing links" - there are thousands of them!  I just ahve the feeling that no number of missing links would be sufficient.  Between any two species it will always be possible ask for a "linking" fossil, and since there cannot be an infinite number of fossils, it will always be theoretically possible to say that no missing links have been found.\n\nmamcrackin: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12200044CLXE\nsee my comment above that no number of misssing links will ever be able to "prove" evolution.  If half-man/half-animal were found (and they have been, just look at all the fossils of the earlier human species) creationists would just ask for 3/4 man, 1/4 animal fossils, and then 7/8 man, 1/8 animal, and so on.  \n\nindiebaptist: Her point is that while there would be fish fossils evenly dispersed throughout the layers of earth, non-aquatic animals would be clumped in one layer - the layer during which the flood occurred.  This is not what we find when looking at the fossils in the layers of earth.  The great flood was also gods way of killing a lot of animals who had done nothing to deserve that punishment. by the way, hovind's PhD (from a non accredited school) is in christian education, not biology or any other science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind  \nI really have to wonder where you are getting your facts from.  Darwin wasn't a lawyer, and even if he was, you are citing the work of someone trained in christian education, not science in order to support your belief.  How is that any better?  In any case, Darwin was formally trained to be a clergyman, but studied a lot of the natural sciences on the side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin\nRegardless of darwin's training, his theories must stand on their own merit, as his has done, and not on the credentials of their creator.
1157187
Your question is a very reasonable one --and brave, since you'll certainly get answers from religious zealots who have completely closed their minds.  Let me start by saying my *only* personal agenda is a search for the truth, no matter where it leads me.  Unlike many, I'm not here to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. \n\nThe short answer is that I doubt it's possible in this kind of forum to get into enough details to convince a confirmed *creationist* that humans evolved from simpler life forms.  But I hope to encourage an open-minded person to continue with their own research, and not be tempted by overly "easy" answers.   \n\nThe long answer (most of it written by me, some of it transcribed manually; none of it pasted)...\n\nI, too, was unclear about the evolutionary process for a long time.  While I'm not an expert (and *nobody* has *all* the answers) I think I can help you get to a place where it makes *sense* to you as it now does to me, since you appear to have an open mind.  (Agnosticism is good!)  \n\nAfter hearing people's arguments and questions for many years, I am convinced that there are six huge factors getting in the way of a general acceptance of the *overwhelming* scientific evidence for evolution.  \n\n1 - the common misconception that evolution claims apes or chimpanzees changed to human beings, and the perceived indignity -- and indignation -- that goes along with that idea... or with *any* suggestion that we evolved from a lower form.  It's nothing but ridiculous human arrogance!\n2 - the lack of human conception for the vast time life has had on Earth to evolve\n3 - the human temptation to rush things and jump to ridiculous (and therefore naturally hard to believe) conclusions.  Evolution involves not three or four steps, like fish to amphibian to ape to human!)... not hundreds, or even thousands of big, visible steps... but perhaps hundreds of millions of minute, subtle changes in a life form.  Remember, we have had the time!\n4 - the mistaken notion that creatures evolved because they "decided" to, or "wanted" to.  When we say, for example, that fish needed to absorb oxygen more efficiently from the water, so they evolved gills, that's not to imply it was a choice.  Evolution is about mutations... changes that were random from one generation to the next, over long periods of time.  Those changes that happened to be good for the creature meant that creature survived long enough to reproduce, which meant there would now be lots of little babies with that same feature.\n5 - a fearful and/or stubborn refusal to abandon faith in a Creator, since doing so might condemn the unbeliever to eternal suffering\n6 - It's just *easier* to think about a Creator.\n\nI know you want to see some details of our "life's path" to make sense of it, and I will provide that, below.  Just a bit more, first.\n\nThe central ideas of evolution are that all life shares a common ancestor, and that it has changed over time (obviously, if we are to explain getting from A to B).  While it's hard for many people to imagine the changes that would result in, for example, human beings from lifelessness, the first thing to keep firmly in mind is that we are talking about an *unimagineable* amount of time to play with... the earth having been around for some 4.5 billion years, as you said.\n\nUnderstandably, few people can appreciate how much a billion is.  Do you realize that roughly a billion *seconds* ago, "The Godfather, Part 2" was about to win the Academy Award for Best Picture?... that Richard Nixon was President of the U.S.?... that Hank Aaron had just broken Babe Ruth's record of 714 career home runs?  1974 was drawing to a close -- one billion seconds ago.\n\nIt's a lack of appreciation for this vast amount of time which, I think, makes people skeptical.  They wonder how, in any amount of time they can envision, an ape can c
990517
12 March 2002\n\nPOINTS OF ORIGINS: Variety is the Spice of Life\nby Dr. Glenn Jackson\n\nAmong modern environmentalists the term "species diversity" is a real keyword. Having lots of different species is considered good for the environment. But having all these species makes it hard to classify them all. When you start to talk about all of the extinct species too -- well, it gets pretty crowded. Most evolutionists are fond of pointing out that 95% (some even say 99%) of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct. Let me suggest a thought that may never have occurred to you before. Maybe most of these were just species that didn't make it to survive much beyond the year of Noah's Flood. Maybe all these "weird" prehistoric life forms only look weird to us because we're just not used to them anymore. There is mounting evidence that the ancient world had many more species -- but all living at the same time! -- not all living in vastly different times like the Paleozoic and Jurassic, etc. One entomologist (insect-studier) from Univ of Kansas says, "I never expected to find this staggering array of diversity. It blew me away." Dr. Engel is an expert on bees (Science News, 2/10/01, p87). A newer DNA study has found that crabs "must have evolved at least five different times." (Science News, 3/2/02) Now it's impossible enough to believe that crabs evolved even once -- let alone five times! Bat DNA seems to indicate that echo-location must have "evolved" in bats at least two times -- maybe three. This conclusion even has the evolutionists going batty! I'm serious. This has been driving them nuts. How could sonar have evolved twice? It's so far-fetched to believe that it could have even evolved once! To make matters worse, fossil species are now so many, that the names are getting all confused (Knoxville-News Sentinel, 2/4/02, pE14). I believe that the richness of the Earth's many species of living things today -- is nowhere near what it was before the Great Flood. That would explain why we see fossils of all these "weird" creatures trapped in the rocks left by the debris from the Flood. With all those extra life forms, there were plenty for evolutionists to choose from, while they were looking for all of their "missing links." Well, since they have started to double-check on all of those links, by using DNA, they have found that their best examples really weren't links at all -- but totally separate created kinds, just like the Genesis account predicts. If the scientists would only begin to do their investigations based on the assumption that creation is true and not evolution -- I'd bet that they'd reach their conclusions a lot faster, and things wouldn't be so confusing but would all begin to make perfect sense. Well, "thinking themselves wise they became fools." You keep thinking. \n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
1135377
You have to look at evolution as a series of slight beneficial changes that are passed down through generations.  The steps from single to double circ are unknown to me, but it is more than a single big jump.
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
1037582
Not all people evolved, as can be seen by some of the questions and answers here.\n\n(Did you really want a sensible answer or would a banana do?)
807648
The better question is, "if evolution is true... what cause some of the monkeys to evolve and the others to stay the same?
1104927
read here\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
1153332
evolution bible almost an oxymoron why do you want to know???
853160
THE EVOLUTION\n\n“I know that the word of “Evolution” has become an obsolete and worthless word in some circles of the people___ and they do frown even on it’s simple reference.\n\nYou will however surprise to know that I, not only, respect these friends and their feelings, rather, I agree to their viewpoint, to some extent, in the light of the current knowledge. Because they apprehend “Evolution” in terms of material or mechanical evolution whereas material or mechanical evolution is far different from that of the creative evolution.\n\nAn important source of Evolution is the Nature’s process of selection. Which is originally one of the laws of nature and a secondary cause, like the other laws of nature, as it’s Creator is again God.\n\nAll the species generated by this process are again the indirect creation of God as the Nature’s process of selection, itself, is not capable to create any specie. It simply admits some species to be nourished, leaving aside the others, to be withered and this process works under some hereditary variations. So___ the survival or removal of a specific specie, is never accidental as it is presumed by the believers of material or mechanical evolution”.\n\nThis very statement of Edward Luther Castle positively removes that superstition. Which has captured, not only, the materialists but the religious leaders as well. Who are still in it’s captivity even after the lapse of so many years. Dr. George Erl Devis, the physicist, writes:\n\n“As much as the knowledge is flourishing and the superstitions are being unveiled___ importance & inevitability of the critical study of religion & ethics___ is increasing day by day in the same scale.”\n\nThe physicist is hinting upon the urge of the “quest for truth and the specific process” which may bring forth, a suitable solution for the problems of life. Of course, we can not lead the life in a particular way unless we come to know the origin of life. What is the actual and factual truth? Only after positive cognition of the same, we can learn to lead the real life. And__ the same learning may, in turn, lead us to the aim of life.\n\nGeorge Erl Devis writes further:\n\n“The surprising scientific discoveries have produced certain indispensable questions. Though not so new, but their nature has become more changed, on account of___ the receipt of detailed information about cosmic system. And___ in any case____ man can not be held as excluded thereform. Among these questions, is the most important question___ upon whose answer is depending___  our aim of life and the system of our moral values. And___ that is the same old question that:\n\nIs there any Supreme and Sublime Source who is the Creator of whole cosmos and who could be surnamed as God?\n\nAnd___ thereby arises the other question, that if God has created us then who has created God? This question is usually raised by the children, in a highly logical air.\n\nWe can not deny the fact, that science has no convincing reply of the question that God is existing or not? Rather, science can never bring forth a scientific proof thereof.\n\nWe are breathing in such a physical universe which is running smoothly in terms of the pre-ordained laws of it’s complexed system. But, it does not mean that we can ever derive some information, through this very universe, about a thing, which is existing outside to this universe. Our universe is just like a room without any doors and windows. And even if it is having the same, then, such glasses are fixed therein that to see & understand the outside thereform is totally impossible. Whereas to see inside from the outside__  is almost possible.”\n\nAs we can not prove the existence or non-existence of God on the basis of science. So it is the all-alone way for us, that whatsoever stock of information we have, about this universe. We should derive a reasonable result therefrom. Such a reasonable result___ which could never be objected on logic