do you really believe in theory of evolution

@kamran12 (5555)
Pakistan
March 25, 2007 8:06pm CST
Darwin's theory of evolution has been read and taught whereby species has evolved into the present forms following the law of survival of the fittest. many species changed their forms with time to adapt to the changes in their living conditions, like humans originating from monkeys or chimps. many became extinct in the process and what we now see are the species who passed the test of time and struggle. if we were to believe in it, isn't it strange that we don't see evolution now or do we? we do see extinction but not the evolution. i would like you to take on the issue.
8 people like this
45 responses
• United States
26 Mar 07
You can see evolution everywhere. Even shedding some animals through extintion does function as evolution if what you have in mind is the ecosystem. It all depends on how granular you take the discussion. Of course, if you are talking about humans, you may not see a clear evolution pattern. But if an animal goes missing in the ecosystem of the rainforest, you will feel the difference in other niches. It is all a matter of defining the range of the discussion.
3 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
animal extinctions in known history has been caused by either clamities or the ruthless human actions and not because of natural selection or evolution. Thanks for participation.
2 people like this
• United States
26 Mar 07
That is for species we keep track of. Who knows how many species are present in nature, and how many disappear over the span of the years. Again, you have to check the range of your discussion. You are very self-centric, if you don't see it you don't believe it. Also, you build every argument around yourself, rather than talking in generic terms. I am building an argument based on theory, rather than practice. It takes a little bit of faith to understand that if you hide an object behind a couch and out of your sight that object still exists.
2 people like this
• United States
26 Mar 07
Another thought sprung up on me as I was leaving the site. I do believe that species that succumb to humans and our 'exterminations' are also victims of natural selection. We do use tools like a few other species. If we use tools to destroy others, that is how our species behaves. Species that defeat our tools are everywhere. Take cockroaches and how resistent they are to all types of tools used to attempt their extermination. The species that succumb to the species we belong to are simply unable to counteract us, just like the white butterflies that couldn't keep up with the industrial age in Britain. If we have a conscious mind that lets us elaborate our actions into cruelty, that is a bit of a misrepresentation. I am not justifying it at all, as a matter of fact we, as humanity, should embrace finding ways to survive together with other species that don't hurt us. I do believe you could write pages and pages on this argument, and I hope that it will bring about some healthy discussion. I do believe though that even extermination by humans is part of natural selection.
2 people like this
@pangeacat (619)
• United States
26 Mar 07
Evolution is all around us. When a species adapts to a new environment, that is evolution. When the percentage of men vs. women in a given population changes, that is evolution. So, by definition, we are still experiences evolution today ~ it is all around us. As to whether or not I specifically adhere to Darwin's theories ~ that's a seperate issue. I haven't made up my mind in that regard. There are the theories he presented that I do see and can prove to myself. Then, there are the theories that go on an educated guess for thousands or millions of years ago. That part is more difficult to work out logically. I don't know if human beings evolved from apes. I do know that I can see evolutionary changes occuring from year to year (in obviously small doses).
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for your response. but my question is about evolution, not about adaptation to new environment. evolution is about genetic changes however small they might be. adaption to environment doesn't bring about genetic change atleast in past 100 years it never happened to my knowledge. anyway thanks for your views
2 people like this
@judyt00 (3500)
• Canada
27 Mar 07
You want to know how evolution happens? look at your parents. are you exctly like either of them? No, you are what happens when their genes combine, and if you have sibs, they will look different from you again. That is evolution happening right before your very eyes. Everything changes, and the changes that make a specific entity survive a little longer than its neighbour make it a better bet on theevolutionaly scale, since it survives longer for its genes to be passed on to another generation
1 person likes this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
27 Mar 07
judy thanks for your participation. but really we are not talking about reproduction here. our topic is darwinian evolution. i am sorry but your content is way far from the topic. we are born from parents having the same set of chromosomes and not a changed gene structure or basic characterisitcs. i hope you got the point and would add something to the topic itself.
1 person likes this
@cute125 (101)
• Australia
26 Mar 07
It never ceases to amaze me the debate about evolution or creationism. People argue strongly one way or another. I believe however that a more likely scenario is probably a theory which combines both. I see no inconsistency in believing that both creationism and darwinian evolutionary theory are possible. God created all things and that includes the processes in nature. People and animals and plants are changing all the time, evolving if you like. god intended for this to be the case. However I do not believe that creatinism should be taught in schools as a science because it obviously isnt science. it can be thought as religion while evolution should be taught in science with the condition that it be taught as a theory and not presented as a tested known fact.
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
27 Mar 07
thanks for your opinion.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Mar 07
First things first, we do have evolution all around us. The problem is that evolution occurs over such long periods of time, that it's not something that can be noticed on a day-to-day basis. The easiest way to notice evolution is to compare the same creatures from the past and today and notice the changes they have made. Small example: There is a type of angler fish that lives in deep, dark water. In order to be able to catch prey and survive, this fish, over time, sprouted an apendage that is essentially, a light bulb that dangles in front of him.
3 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
27 Mar 07
i agree that if there is evolution, it can't be seen on day to day bases. but problem is with such a huge historical knowledge of creatures, we still lack or don't have proof that evolution did occure. i would be waiting for somebody, an akcowledged scientist with credibility come out to say that evolution did occure and i have the proof. Thanks for you response
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Mar 07
No, I believe the Bible. I believe that God created the Earth in 7 literal days and that the earth is not "millions of years old" but is in fact about 6,000 to 7,000 years old. I suggest that you check out some of the skeptic questions on the Answers in Genesis web site. You'll find that there's some great information out there. To be truthful it takes more faith to believe in evolution than just to simply trust God to be everything he said He is. Afterall someone designed us, we are not some biological accident as many believe. I hope this helps you!
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
27 Mar 07
i appreciate your views
1 person likes this
• Philippines
27 Mar 07
sorry to correct you, but God created the world in 6 days according to Genesis. btw, if the earth is only 6,000 to 7,000 years old, how come we see stars which are millions of light years away? I dont think Answers to Genesis has answered this...
2 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
27 Mar 07
Exactly. That's but one of the countless pieces of evidence pointing towards an old universe, which Genesis literalists have to magically discount in order to protect their idea of how the world suddenly popped into existance one day.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Mar 07
I don't believe in evolution from an evolution vs creation standpoint. Evolution teaches us that we have no purpose, no meaning, and that we were all mistakes. I believe that we have a creator, God, who designed us all in His image. As far as things changing over time - I do think God has designed creation so perfectly that there is a form of changing "evolution". We might not know why the changes are occuring, but God does. As humans we have a real problem with the unknown. I gave up on it - there are things I am not capable of understanding and God is, so let it be.
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
26 Mar 07
I respect your option of believing that life was generated by a creator deity; but I disagree with your characterization of evolution stating that we are "mistakes". That's not what the theory of evolution says, instead, it says that the creatures who could better strive and survive in their environment are the ones who passed their genes down the generations and eventually led to all things that are alive today. Not, in any sense, mistakes.
1 person likes this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
27 Mar 07
thanks for your opinion, as for "mistake", i would like to say that an accident would be a better word.
1 person likes this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
27 Mar 07
Hmmm... I'm not entirely happy with that word either. An "accident" usually implies negative conotations. I'd rather say we're the entirely non-random result of a process that has some random elements in it.
1 person likes this
@nasvin (24)
• Philippines
26 Mar 07
I really am confused now on what to believe... Do I have to believe the bible which says that God created everything. Or do I have to believe in the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin.. Both the bible and the theory of evolution have the points. But to where would I believe now... Will I continue believing to the Bible which is part of my being a Christian or to the theory of evolution which is part of my being a student of sciences. I mean it is so much confusing because this hits my faith, everyone's faith.. hooh...
2 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
26 Mar 07
No one can make that decision for you. It takes faith to believe either way.
3 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for your response. while bible or other holy scriptures are sure to assert that life was started by GOD, science is not sure if there really has been evolution. but chopice remains yours about who to believe.
2 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
26 Mar 07
I'd always be wary of any text which claims to have all the answers for everything, and no chance for improvement, regardless of being in an everchanging world. I'd rather stick with a method that admits its own fallibility and strives to correct whatever mistakes are found, to get closer and closer to the correct answers.
2 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
26 Mar 07
You're forgetting the fact that a few centuries is not nearly enough time to see visible signs of evolution in, for instance, humans. That doesn't mean evolution isn't happening, only that we would need a LOT more time to observe it as it is happening now.
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
you are right that few centuries in the whole timeline of earth is nothing but how much will be sufficient enough? this theory havn't yet been proved despite works of thousands of scientists. it remains a theory to this date. But thanks for your views
2 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
26 Mar 07
The Theory of Gravity still remains just a theory, too. Would you say gravity hasn't been proved? ;) The scientific meaning for the word "theory" is different from the one you and I are used to in our everyday conversations. It doesn't simply mean "conjecture" or "supposition". Here is a good explanation of what a scientific theory is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
sir, theory of gravity is proven and we have a law of gravitation. my point was and still is that theory of evolution is not yet proven.
2 people like this
• Philippines
26 Mar 07
Darwin's original theory had several flaws, that is why a new school of thought emerged as Neo-Darwinism and other models adopted from Darwin. Micro-evolution can be observed in laboratories, some may call adaptation, as bacteria "evolves" into better or more resistant bacteria. Macro-evolution however is still debatable. Fossils dont give much help because of the glitch in the theory known as Darwin's blackbox. A complex organ, such as an eye, could not have evolved, because evolution requires intermediate states. Intermediate states of complex organs will fail, such as an eye without a rod or a cone would not be able to see. Other problems still hound the theory of evolution is the existence of simple organisms. why have they remained simple. The theory of evolution still needs refinement. I go for a mediated evolution, merging an intelligent creator with an evolutionary process. Someone one great out there is mediating over all creation.
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
26 Mar 07
Re: Irreducible Complexity, look for a discussion by a similar name here in MyLot. There I talked extensively about how this is a flawed concept, since it ignores that evolution can happen in different ways other than the simplistic "systematic addition of parts". Re: Simple Organisms, I don't see why they would be a problem. Evolution is not about making organisms more complex, it's about letting those who are best suited for their environments survive and reproduce. Sometimes, being simple and requiring less resources is the best way to survive.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
27 Mar 07
thanks for your opinion, i really appreciate.
1 person likes this
• Philippines
27 Mar 07
ei fargale, thanks for the response, il check on it. i do appreciate ur keeping ur cool over this "debate." i havent been updated on the issues of Darwinism. btw, i am a Christian, and i would like to ask for apologies if sometimes arguements heat up over these matters. i would really appreciate a dialogue.
1 person likes this
26 Mar 07
I think it should first be made clear that the process which is described in the theory of evolution takes place over millions of years. Therefore, it is an uninformed question you ask; "....isn't it strange that we don't see evolution now....?" I believe that the theory of evolution is only a theory, as the name suggests. It is not fact or even provable; a good theory has inherent falsifiability. Evolution meets all of the requirements for a good scientific theory, and has withstood many challenges thrown against it. It is the best theory we have to explain how the species we witness today came about. Full Article: http://www.helium.com/tm/223187 Draven the Respectful Atheist http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
firstly thanks for your views, i do appreciate them. now coming to theory... though i belong to a theology yet my discussion is on scientific grounds. i am a Doctorate student in engineering and believe in capabilities of sciences. it appears that darwin himself was much better aware about the flaws in his theory than my knowledgeable friend is. For example darwin writes," if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." and he further says that... "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection. seems, i freely confess, absurd in the highest degree". theory of evolution itself stems from the premise that life started from no where, from no-life.
2 people like this
@Latrivia (2888)
• United States
26 Mar 07
Kamran, the theory of evolution does not even encompass the idea of how life started. It deals only with how we got from point A of life to point B of life on the evolutionary ladder. It was not meant to explain how life began. Evolution stems from the premise that every creature here on Earth evolved from a simple being.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for your opinion. you are right that theory deals with the life from point A to point B. but right at start it says that point A came from no-life. climate at that time gave rise to conditions in which inorganic materials converted to organic ones and created simplest form of life and so on. i think i have cleared the point
2 people like this
• India
26 Mar 07
yes darwin's theory is correct as far as i am concerned i can't just believe that adam and eve came out of nowhere and that now there are 6 billion people in this world
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for the opinion.
2 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
26 Mar 07
Mdadilali, Why I'm sure there weren't always billions of people on earth, nor millions , nor thousands. But what does the theory of evolution say? Initially there were billions of what?
2 people like this
@jojogirl (289)
• Philippines
26 Mar 07
i've always believed that man evolved from a different species, as proven by the skulls of prehistoric people that were dug and discovered in caves. i, however, do not believe that we evolved from apes such as monkey and chimpanzees, for if so, why are they still in existence?
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
skulls only proved that there were other species and nothing else. it is only presented as a possibility that they might have a role of being human forefathers not as a proof of evolution with certainity.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for your response anyway
2 people like this
• India
26 Mar 07
yes i do the reson is that if it would not had been then an intelligent person would not have existd yes i am talking about the person to which we are jelous like u r class mate because he is intelligent this intelligence is due to the devlopment of his fore fathers
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
you are right about the effects of forefathers but this is because of the exposure that they transfer to their next generation. intelligence is not only the hereditory charecteristic, it can be acquired by exposure to outer world. if you take a baby from very intelligent forefathers and put him in a desolate place completely isolated from world and take another bay from less intelligent parents and put him in maximum exposure you will see that the baby of lesser intelligent parents will develope intelligence more than the baby of more intelligent parents. it's a proven fact that exposure counts a lot in developing the intelligence.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
and i really appriciate your contribution
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2888)
• United States
26 Mar 07
First of all, I'd like to clear up a misconception. Current evolutionary theory suggests that humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. So to all those who continue to ask 'Why are the apes still here', it is because humans did not evolve from apes. Also, we do see evolution occur. It's called microevolution - evolution on a smaller scale which consists of genetic adaptations and mutations. Doctors must constantly find new antibiotics for bacteria every year, because those bacteria who manage to survive the antibiotics the first time can copy this useful trait from their DNA and pass it on to their offspring. You also see microevolution in bugs. Pesticides must be switched out every few years, because after a while they fail to have any effect on crop killing insects. This is because those insects who survive the poison pass this beneficial trait on to their offspring, like the bacteria. Most people discredit macroevolution because we have yet to see one species evolve into another. However, given that evolution takes several thousand to several million years, it's not that hard to understand why. The theory of evolution hasn't been around that long - it's still taking baby steps. To expect to see major results of several millenia of change in a matter of only a few hundred years is ludicrous. Now, for my personal belief: I believe evolution (macroevolution) is possible. It is not proven (nor are many other theories of the mechanics of life), but that doesn not mean it doesn't have evidence to support it's possibility. Evolution is the theory I currently support, and I will continue to do so until I see convincing evidence against it.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
well we are talking about the original evolution theory whereby humans are developed from apes or chimps or monkeys. you would have read that often. the micro evolution that you are talking about, not many scientists believe it to be called an evolution. according to darwin evolution is a very slow process. genetic adaptation and mutation of micro organism never lead to evolution. it's the inherent capability of the organism and despite of several mutation that organism remains basically the same. like for example, the HIV (and many other viruses)undergoes several mutations but never become a bacteria or some other species. they remain in their domain. other example of medecin resistant bacteria is already answered by some one.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
and thanks for the opinion :-)
2 people like this
@ackars (1942)
• India
26 Mar 07
Yes I believe it to a percentage of 85...Most of the things darwin has said is actually true...We all definitely seeing evolution around us...but the fact is that the universe has evolved to such an extent that the rate of such evolution at the present world has gone down..but still it pertains here in one form or the other.
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for your opinion
2 people like this
• India
26 Mar 07
i would appreciate your wise point. scientists keep on telling about the changes and transformations that made to reach a level like our life form but rarely admit wat would happen next.Would such a species of human beings would evolve who are immune to diseases like aids or cancer.why such a 'fittest' ones are not surviving is a dilemma to science. What i would believe is that even if there are 'tyres and nuts and bolts and glass or sheetmetal',unless there is an engineer to make it into a car nothings gonna happen! we were not formed so serendipous from hydrogen gas.thatz visible in every creation .Renowed car maker Mercedes for eg. made Bionic car being inspired by its aerodynamic shape of 'boxfish' for a higher fuel efficiency. each creation has been best designed,beautifully designed,timely designed,and most efficiently designed in the sense that life must go on.as an engineering student i dont think that would happen serendipous.why we can recreate all these now in labs ?
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
i really appreciate your opinion. thanks for participation
2 people like this
@Wingedman (238)
• United States
26 Mar 07
I'm more in favor of Douglas Adams view from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The Earth was created by a race of super intelligent beings as a giant computer trying to work out the ultimate question of life the universe and everything. And we'll probably figure it out 30 secs before the planet is destroyed to make a new spaceway by pass and be so frightened by our brilliance that we can't tell anyone.
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
some people call this super intelligent being the GOD. Thanks for your opinion.
2 people like this
@Asylum (48027)
• Manchester, England
26 Mar 07
Of course we see evolution now, although it is not the type of thing that you can just sit and watch happening. The evolutionary process take thousands of years to prduce a noticeable difference, although they are still examples around us today. For example, you may have noticed that the current generation of human beings are mmuch taller than their grandparents, which is a trend that has been ocurring for centuries. If you have the opportunity to view armour that was used in the olden days you will notice how much smaller people were then.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for your opinion. The size of human beings depended mainly on the nutritional care for the body. in the past when people were lesser aware about the sciences and human body growth charecteristics, they were subjected to chances. either to be taller or smaller but now as we know that how things work physically we can control to some extent the size of body. Besides this has nothing to do with evolution. there is no change in the basic genes and structure of human micro biology. our chromosomes remain same.
2 people like this
• Philippines
26 Mar 07
for me as a catholic christian i dont believe on it because we are tought that in the beggening we created by god.........
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
i appreciate your opinion
2 people like this
• Philippines
26 Mar 07
I see this theory to its very rational sense. we cannot really tell if it is really happening now or in the future. i do believe in some of its details moreover, mostly. The theory that human are just a part of the animal kingdon that just evolved from apes cannot really deny. This theory can also see in different manner. for instance, people who live together may have the tendency to experince what they call Convergetn evolution. Its about how each other adopt physically.
2 people like this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
26 Mar 07
thanks for your response. the theory if not proven wrong (though many scientists believe it to be wrong), has not been proven right either. physical adaptation is not the genetic change and thats what we are talking about.
2 people like this