ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Astronomy & Space Exploration

Why Evolution Is The More Viable Theory

Updated on September 13, 2015

Cosmic Heaven?

Since the dawn of life, we have always look towards the heavens in the night sky for many reasons. We looked toward the heavens in question of how we emerged, we allowed our eyes to wonder across the sky and utilized the placement of the stars and the planets to come up with intricate organization of time (such as creating days of the week, tracking the months and the time of the day.)

Carl Sagan illustrates in his book The Pale Blue Dot: The Vision of the Human Future in Space, that people have often drawn association between the stars and the planets with biblical and other such religious literature. Which may be how some of the biblical accounts of events came to be in the first place; by observing Space. The number 7 seems to be of significant relevance in this case, being dubbed the "number of the Universe." (In this juncture of time, there was the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, 7 celestial bodies, at least that they were aware of.) Coincidentally following this sequence of seven through out early history, there are Seven:

  • ages of man
  • ancient wonders of the world
  • circles of Universe
  • Cosmic Stages
  • days of the week
  • heavens
  • hells
  • pillars of wisdom
  • rays of the sun
  • musical notes

The number seven was also apparently the Egyptian symbol of such ideas as perfection, effectiveness, and completeness.

Many millennia ago there was no more than a elemental understanding of the objects in our beautiful night sky, eventually the planets were distinguished as being different from the twinkling stars and were traditionally named after the Greek and Roman Gods. The vastness of space was interpreted to be the "Heavens."

So if our interpretation of God and/or Gods came to be via our observation of the night sky, could it not be possible these accounts of creation where analyzed as a way of answering the questions, "How DID we get here? Are we special creations?" And if that is the case, how can we be expected to assume that literature that has been written and rewritten, and hearsay has any conceivable relevance in opposing the evidence we currently have today.

Background Radiation Map
Background Radiation Map | Source

Evidence of the Big Bang

Along with precise mathematical equations we also have observational evidence that coincides and justifies the theory. If we were to see the universe approximately one second after the Big Bang, what we would see essentially, is a very hot (about 10 million degrees), colossal soup of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. As time progressed, things would begin to cool, and as this cooling continued, eventually the universe would reach a temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms. The significance of this "recombination" meant that the Universe suddenly lost it's opaque appearance and became transparent. Those VERY same photons produces what we call the "after glow". Which is simply cosmic background radiation and can very well be observed today. In fact there have been two previous missions of study to confirm this. The Cosmic Background Explorer or (COBE)in 1992, which charted the primordial hot and cold spots in the background radiation. The second mission was launched in 2001, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This mission surveyed the sky and provided better resolution of the seemingly consistent disbursement of microwave radiation that varied in temperature, than the prior COBE mission.

Ancient Fossil Bacteria about 850 million years old.
Ancient Fossil Bacteria about 850 million years old. | Source

Evidence of Evolution

Being that Anthropology is my minor, I am an adamant believer in the theory of Evolution, because we have such an abundant amount of evidence within our fossil record alone, that tells us we have methodically changed and adapted over time and evolved as a species to better thrive in our surrounding conditions. I think a lot of people dismiss the idea of evolution because they don't entirely understand the concept, or they don't want to believe that we were at one point in time "insignificant." I like to perceive it in a different manner. Life took a HUGE step forward when Cyanobacteria introduced the first elements of oxygen into our dense carbon dioxide atmosphere. Cyanobacteria is one of the largest and most important bacteria that is still around. It is notable for it's contribution in the origin of plants. The chloroplasts that plants require to obtain energy from the sun and create food, is actually cyanobacterium living inside the plants cells. Through endosymbiosis, the cyanobacteria resides inside some eukaryotic cells, metabolizing energy for the eukaryotic host. There is fossil evidence of this that is millions of years old.

If a single celled organism can evolve in such manner, I have no difficulty generalizing the idea that multi cellular, complex life evolved later from that point.

Early humanoid fossils.
Early humanoid fossils. | Source
Chart
Chart | Source

More Evidence...

Fossil Record Change in Species

Although there is no exact number of human species, there have been dozens of fossil discoveries of early human life. In order from earliest to most recent..

  • Sahelanthropus tchadensis
  • Orrorin tugenensis
  • Ardipithecus kadabba
  • Ardipithecus ramidus
  • Australopithecus anamensis
  • Australopithecus afarensis
  • Australopithecus garhi
  • Paranthropus aethiopicus
  • Australopithecus africanus
  • Homo rudolfensis
  • Australopithecus sediba
  • Homo habilis
  • Paranthropus robustus
  • Paranthropus boisei
  • Homo heidelbergensis
  • Homo erectus
  • Homo neanderthalensis
  • Homo floresiensis
  • Homo sapiens (Us)

An adequate amount of research will tell you that it is not possible that such a vast amount of species could have existed within a mere 4,000 years. And I should clarify, that this notion not only pertains to human species, but plant, insect and other animal species as well. Millions of species have existed and thousands have gone extinct. Just as many geological changes have occurred through out the Earth's lifetime and can all be dated to millions of years as well through radiometric age dating, or radiocarbon dating. There are some trees that are actually dated to be older than 6,000. In the Science VS Creationism between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Ham made the statement that observing the tree rings to determine the age of the tree is inadequate, because we were not there to see the tree grow to know for sure. My own counter argument would have been, this is absolutely a testable hypothesis. You can go out in your own front yard, plant a tree, allow it to grow a few years and proceed the experiment by later cutting it down to count the rings.

Genetic Changes Over Time

The process of natural selection, resulting in evolution. One really good example of this is antibiotic resistance. By supplying a lethal dosage of antiobiotic to bacteria that is living in a nutrient medium, there will be a mass die-off. There will be few survivors among the colony that were immune. These will continue to survive and pass on the genetic immunity to the next generation, causing an evolution in the bacteria.

Species that reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time, have potential for rapid evolutionary changes. If evolution has occurred (which is the most likely of events), there should be many similarities among varieties and species that have deviated from a common ancestor. The species with the most recent ancestor will share the most traits. For example, similarities of wolves, dogs and other members of the genus Canis are due to their descendence from the same ancient canine species and still share 99.8% of their genes. Subsequently, Homo Sapiens share 98.9% of our DNA with chimpanzees. There are many MANY other species I could give examples of, but I feel i've illustrated my point here.

You You Should Know..

This is simply my version of a rudimentary understanding of the topic in question. I do realize that as individuals, everyone will have a different logic or understanding of things. And I would like to say, I have absolutely nothing against religion or people who are religious. I simply prefer the science and the evidence over the literature.

--Ruth


Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ruth Angel profile image
      Author

      Ruth Mata 2 years ago from New Mexico

      Eldon, perhaps you would enjoy my latest article? https://hubpages.com/education/The-Proverbial-Chic...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 2 years ago from Yorktown NY

      I wrote a hub a while ago on this topic you may find interesting - https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Atheists-...

    • Eldon Arsenaux profile image

      Eldon Arsenaux 2 years ago from Cooley, Texas

      For your fact-finding nature, Ruth, the books jackclee is referring to are categorically considered to be pseudo-science. Let us defer judgement until the discourse is in.

      Ancient Astronaut theories are observational, first and foremost, creating facts from stories, not the other way around. They take religious texts (partially based in material reality and abstractive law) and rework them onto a material reality of scientific and historical discourse.

      Hope that is not too convoluted. A more direct hit: I wrote a paper on Sitchin's Chariot Of The Gods? (for an astronomy course), entitled The Chariot Riders. In summation, I came to this quandary: How can we trust the tower of facts when they are necessarily constructed on a structural-base of flimsy, economizing motives? Millions of Sitchin's books were sold because they challenged typical knowledge-power social structures.

      On Pseudo-Scientific discourse:

      These 'researchers' uncovered clues to an heretofore unknown ancient and alien civilization (composed of major deities/angels). This conclusion was built loosely on a base of Drake's Law: it is highly unlikely that humanity is alone in the Universe.

      From this loose mathematical law (easily misconstrued for their motives) they extrapolated that any old cosmic civilization could come to earth to populate it, producing humanoids in their image, thereby diminishing and upholding religious tales of creation, whilst undermining scientific revelations on the source of Life.

      That these angels/aliens lived side-by-side with humans is the debate which circumvents their own logic. The civilization stayed for a time, living amongst us. They alone produced malefactors and benefactors of knowledge. These angels had a hand in the construction of The Pyramids at Giza and various other pseudoscientific staples (Tower of Babel, Chilean landing strips, crop circles, etc.). Miraculously though, they disappeared, reinserting (perhaps) the Christian account of The Fall from Grace, going against the Creator. I could conjecture that they puzzled 'facts' into a symbolic story, which opposed principles of Science, principles they supposedly lean on. Hence, the inherent illogic of their claims.

      This was done with insidious motives (much like L. Ron Hubbard and scientology) to pamphleteer their Cult of Pseudo-Facts onto a disillusioned population that began to disrespect social (scientific) structures since the dropping of two Atomic Bombs (and postwar Nuclear testing).

      Golly that was long-winded. In retrospect, it's probably why I didn't get an A in astronomy. But I hope it helps make jacklee's knowledge-power offer (to overturn traditional scientific hierarchies) less resourceful, and less respectable (since it presents an underworld of knowledge that only devil's in bedlam would understand).

      -E.G.A.

    • Ruth Angel profile image
      Author

      Ruth Mata 2 years ago from New Mexico

      Eldon- I agree, Bill Nye is a very notable scientist.

    • Eldon Arsenaux profile image

      Eldon Arsenaux 2 years ago from Cooley, Texas

      Listen to Bill Ny, he's a good guy.

      -E.G.A.

    • profile image

      Mr Brooks 2 years ago

      Bating me into debating everyone I see. Ha ha

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 2 years ago from Yorktown NY

      Ruth, if you are interested, check out the writings of Zachariah Sitchin. Also, Gerald Scheoder on the science of God.

    • Ruth Angel profile image
      Author

      Ruth Mata 2 years ago from New Mexico

      I have briefly heard of that theory, but I admit I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to debate it. I will research it a little more.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 2 years ago from Yorktown NY

      Ruth, creation is not the only alternative and the fact that the bible estimate of 4000 years from creation does not necessarily mean literally 4000 years. With relativity, we know that time is relative and in bible terms 1 day can represent 1 year... Or 1000 years... The other alternative is intelligent design. This is a theory proposed by some and adopted by ancient alien theorists. The possibility that aliens are responsible with tinkering with our genetics to create modern man in their image...

    • Ruth Angel profile image
      Author

      Ruth Mata 2 years ago from New Mexico

      Thank you for your comments, I always value alternative perspectives. It is true that we happen to keep discovering earlier and earlier humanoid fossils, which I would think contradicts the creationism theory more so than the evolution theory, because even though you may not feel the time frame fits for evolution, it is out of the ball park for creationism. Through creationism it is assumed that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old while these early fossils are much older than that.

      I do keep an open mind to theory as well, but I will tend to sway more so where the evidence leads.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 2 years ago from Yorktown NY

      The problem with evolution theory is the time frame. In order for all the combination of mutations to take form, it would take a very long time. With every new discovery of fossils, we are learning that man has been around earlier and earlier. This tend to discredit evolution theory. The other problem with evolution is the survival of the fittest... We have plenty of evidence that some traits of animals do not necessary benefit their survival. The last problem is the self aware of humans. This is unique to man among all animals. How is this possible? I will keep an open mind and allow for other possibilities of the creation of man.

    • Ruth Angel profile image
      Author

      Ruth Mata 2 years ago from New Mexico

      Thank you! I'm flattered :)

    • lions44 profile image

      CJ Kelly 2 years ago from Auburn, WA

      Good, precise review of evolution. Shared.

    working