If evolution is fact, why are there so many variations of the process?

1. 62

   dianetrotterposted 12 years ago

   If evolution is fact, why are there so many variations of the process?
   
   In response to a previous question 6 people gave six variations of evolution:  Several theories involved fish and several did not.  One person discussed migration of lions?  If evolution is true, why don't all evolutionist believe the same theory?

   replyreport
2. 59

   eternals3ptemberposted 12 years ago

   If you could provide a link...
   In reality there shouldn't be a dispute. Evolution is just mutations causing an observable change in a population.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      of course not, and in mlost of the world there's no problem - it's america's right wing fundamentalists that are messing with our schools by pushing this creationist nonsense

      replyreport
3. 67

   rusticyetiposted 12 years ago

   Because...evolution isn't correct. It is an inadequate theory from the 19th century. The truth is much more complex, and the implications are different.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      eternals3ptemberposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How so?

      replyreport
   2. 62

      dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Rustic and Eternal.  This, to me seems to be a difficult question, so I have no way of choosing the best answer.  I remember studying neanderthal, cromagnan and some other man in the evolution process; however, they are not mentioned anymor

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As opposed to the "inadequate theory" of the 19th Century BC? Actually, Homo Neanderthalenis and other species of humans are still discussed at length in textbooks and by anthropologists. They haven't disappeared.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      from OP:neanderthal, cromagnan and some other man in the evolution process; however, they are not mentioned anymor
      
      yet another disregard for the facts - numerous articles about neamderthals in the NYTimes in the last yr alone

      replyreport
4. 61

   cascolyposted 12 years ago

   maybe you're confusing examples with the fact of evolution -- there are hundreds of examples showing how evolution works - what specifically is confusing about the responses you've seen?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm only interested in humans.  I am a creationist.  As far as I know, all creationists believe the same thing.  Evolutionists have multiple versions.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      not true - most creationists deny evolution for ANY species.  evolution provides a coherent explanation, backed by scientific evidence. creationism's only evidence is the bible or koran

      replyreport
5. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 12 years ago

   It's accepted as fact in all societies, except those based on religious extremism. I don't think anyone wants to force someone to accept evolution or natural selection (or mutational DNA evidence, or the fossil record) if they do not wish to accept them. Some people prefer to believe in things and to hope for a higher power. That's natural. But if the question is asked, people are all going to try to answer it the best way they can using various analogies or examples. If you are interested in the subject of genetic mutations and natural selection, I would recommend checking out a few books and studying it on your own. The answers may be more clear.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I asked the question because I'm on discussion groups about proving the existence of God.  Much of the discussion goes into science and evolution.  I wondered if evolutionists were able to explain their belief as they ask Christians to do.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      creationists often try to obscure the argument by distorting the defitniion of beliefwhat you miss is that evolution is not a belief but a FACT -- it requires no leap of faith - just logic & rational analysis backed by science.  what do you have?

      replyreport
6. 0

   calculus-geometryposted 12 years ago

   Please understand I am not trying to be dismissive of your question, but why don't you read a science book for a more thorough and clearer explanation of evolution?  Just because several people here gave you several different answers on how evolution works doesn't mean evolution is false.  It means you're asking in the wrong place. 
   
   Sure, many people here are experts and/or are educated, but let's be honest, many are not.  If you are seeking a deeper understanding of some scientific theories or natural phenomena, an informal Q&A forum may not be the best place to go for answers.
   
   I wish you the best of luck in your quest for knowledge.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you calculus.  Creationists are criticized for our uniform belief.  I don't understand why evolutionists are so critical when they don't have a unified version.  If it is common sense and should be believed, why can't evolutionist agree?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      common sense tells us the sun revolves around the earth - are you really asking us to believe that?  evolution does have a uniform explanation - natural selection thru time based on random mutatuion. what EVIDENCE do you have for your claim?

      replyreport
   3. 62

      dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I wasn't able to respon to cascoly because of limitations on question.  I created a Hub http://dianetrotter.hubpages.com/hub/If … cessTheHub
      Tonymac, I think I accidently deleted one of your comments.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      sorry, your hub just regurgitated all the creationist nonsense i predicted in my earlier hub - you quote ONLY creationist sources of junk science- you have NO EVIDENCE  USING real scientific evidence
      you have yet to present ANY evidence for creation

      replyreport
7. 61

   nightwork4posted 12 years ago

   evolution is still being understood. we don't know all the facts and we are finding new things out all the time. that is why it makes so much sense, because it is so hard to explain. religion tried to make it simple for simple people but as we grow in intelligence, we realize how foolish the "god" thing is.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The beginning is past.  So it is better to change what one believes every time someone comes up with something knew?  I would think intelligent people would validate their sources before believing them.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      how do you validate a myth told by shepherds 2000 or more years ago?  a rational view accepts uncertainty and relies on an increasingly solid fund of evidence

      replyreport
   3. 61

      nightwork4posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      it has nothing to do with validation but rather every thing to do with intelligence. we're smart enough to learn as we go and make the changes that are needed for something to make sense.the bible and god has never been validated .

      replyreport
8. 100

   chef-de-jourposted 12 years ago

   Evolution theory itself is evolving! There are many strands. Ask 100 people and you will get 100 different answers! This is the beauty of being human - variety of response! Evolution was proposed after Darwin (et al) discovered through analysis of irrefutable evidence that creation may not possibly be all down to one creator God. And so began the great debate which rages still today and will go on for a good length of time. Or until humanity grows out of a need for faith?
   
   Your question is self defeating in a sense. If evolution is fact.......If? Evolution is a  fact whether created by a God - as you believe - or self created, which on balance seems the more likely. Self created? How can that be? Well, you'd have to explore the realms of philosophy and that also has multiple strands of being.
   
   It seems to me that the religion v evolution/God v Matter argument will continue for a few more hundred years yet.....why?
   
   Evolutionists cannot argue against Faith - there is no common debating ground!!! What I find very hard to understand is a Believer's need to study anything remotely scientific - Faith should be enough shouldn't it? Are you trying to uncover God by stealth?
   
   If truth is your aim then I think you will find it elusive, outside of Faith.
   
   The people at CERN with their Higgs Boson experiments are maybe closer to some form of truth.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      hi chef-de-jour, I have no intention of looking any of this up.  Question is related to discussions I'm in.  Believers are directed to read a bunch of stuff.  not enough space to finish.  Rhetorical question from my standpoint.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      diane - so you really dont care about facts - you just want to perpetuate an archiac fallacy?

      replyreport
9. 62

   dianetrotterposted 12 years ago

   With all due respect folks, we are expected to accept evolution as fact.  Then we are guided to resources to read about it.  There seems to be a lot of philosopy to it because some are stating 'it could be" or "there are different evolutions," etc.  There seems to be no way to present evolution in a convincible way to skeptics like me.  I don't have time to read books or countless sites on evolution.  Does that make me mindless or dingy?  No!  I have a very full, busy life contributing to society.  One cannot readily identify someone who doesn't believe in evolution.  How often does the subject of evolution come up?  Rarely.  Why spend a lot of time reading about information you really don't need?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      that's #4 of the top 10 creationist distortions !  unlike creationists, scientists are careful in their languuage and do not make claims they can't back up
      
      btw you're not a skeptic - you dont want to listen or read the answers to your initial questi

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Robert the Bruceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Diane, you mentioned that you don't have time to study evolution (or more likely don't want to). Finding the answers to questions requires reading and study. If you are unwilling to do that, I guess you will never understand evolution.

      replyreport
10. 52

    vashttii1posted 12 years ago

    Well,consider our planet compared to others. It is just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around the earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gasses to sustain life. Light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for the earths inhabitants. On august 24 and 31 in 1974 page 124 science news addmitted" It seems as if such particular and precise conditions could hardly arisen at random". Earths design has a purpose, that no other planet can mimic. Evolution should be able to reproduce this in other planets if it is the source of earths design, wouldent you think.And  Light from the andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemosphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. Yet end products of radioactive decay in rocks in  the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed   for billions of years. As science will say these are the facts.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       dianetrotterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       This certainly supports intelligent design.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       looks you stole much of this comment  from the Discover magazine website [or one of the several creationist websites with this exact wording]
       http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/disco … t-journal/

       replyreport
    3. 60

       royalblkroseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       @cascoly- Discover magazine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Disney corporation. and as such, is most focused on making money rather than espousing a particular p.o.v.

       replyreport
    4. 61

       cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       objection was most of his comment was a direct quote from elsewhere without attribution
       
       larger question is the quote itself, which most likely is taken out of context - it sounds like a version of the anthropic principle, not support for ID at all

       replyreport