isn't Darwin's theory is just that... a theory??

1. 61

   smalikaposted 13 years ago

   The paleontologists have found no evidence of the existence of the intermediate creatures that are claimed by Darwin to have existed for the conversion of one animal species to another..

   replyreport
   1. 93

      Susana Sposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, there is absolutely no evidence for evolution at all.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's an inaccurate characterization of Darwin's ideas.
      
      To borrow an example from Susana's charts, a Pilohippus didn't just one day give birth to an Equus - the change took place as the result of thousands of tiny genetic changes building up over millions of years. There are no "intermediate forms" because EVERYTHING is an intermediate form.
      
      You are an intermediate form between Home sapiens and whatever we're going to turn into next, and so am I and so are Susana and Mark and wilderness and Bard of Ely.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Very well said.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I already proved it in this thread.
         
         http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/65546#post1438922

         replyreport
2. 61

   smalikaposted 13 years ago

   why then is this theory given so much importance and even taught to children in school? this is deception..

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The theory of gravity is just that as well - just a theory.
      
      In neither case do we absolutely know ALL the minute details, but in both cases we DO know and understand enough to accept it as true and factual.  Naysayers that simply WANT to believe something else will always be able to find missing bits here and there (especially if they don't truly understand the theory) and pick and gripe, but that doesn't change the fact that the basics of the theory are factual.
      
      As such, there is no deception - we simply teach the knowledge we have to the best of our ability.  That we are also required to teach the imaginings of of creation alongside as an acceptable "theory" is the deception.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sarcasm - ever heard of it?
      
      Dear me.

      replyreport
   3. 93

      Susana Sposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry I was being sarcastic. There is reams of evidence for evolution (see images above) which is why it isn't "just a theory" or rather "just a hypothesis".
      
      Ha you beat me to it Mark

      replyreport
   4. 61

      White Teethposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      To identify those people who need to go on The List. This was an edict passed down from the Greys to the United Nations.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      deception?  Not at all.  Other science topics include microbiology, genetics, electricity, chemical structures, light, geology....they are all build on 'theories' too - a theory in science explains how something works  - it's supported by a huge body of evidence and can be added to as more information is gained.  It's also open to new discoveries- no secret agendas.
      Not to be confused with some uses of the word 'theory' meaning a stab in the dark idea.

      replyreport
3. 77

   Bard of Elyposted 13 years ago

   I don't believe in the theory of evolution and have studied animals and plants all my life. It gets me into arguments when I say I don't believe in it but I say I cannot find any examples of where once species is changing into a new one apart from within families where there are many species with similar characteristics. I cannot see how genetic material can enter that of unrelated animals or plants in billions of years. It simply never happens that unrelated species can hybridise. The only way genes of one species can enter the genetic coding for an unrelated species is via genetic engineering via a human agent which is happening today with the 'Frankenscience' that is being practised. I have theorised that in past lost civilisations in Lemurian and Atlantean times that perhaps genetic manipulation was being done then and that is how changes came about that Darwin's theory says happened by evolution.
   I also cannot see how an insect can gradually evolve a new stage of its life cycle. I mean by that that where are the examples of between a caterpillar and a chrysalis or a grub and a pupa? How did these remarkable changes evolve?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      White Teethposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually human DNA contains the remnants of various viruses that have afflicted us in the past.
      
      I’m not sure what this transfer of genetic material has to do with evolution though. Evolution is about mutation.
      
      So the magic guy in the sky just made the DNA of all the great apes very similar just to test our faith?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Bard of Elyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Surely it is very much to do with the passing on of genes via reproduction? How else are new forms passed on to create new species as per the evolution theory? Isn't this what scientists are doing when they are mutating a normal form into a new one by adding genetic material to produce new and wanted characteristics? If a new mutation exists it needs to breed to create more. I am back to asking how did the first caterpillar evolve or mutate into a chrysalis? I know of no almost a chrysalis examples.

         replyreport
   2. 77

      skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Speciation takes thousand of years for any species to branch out from the parent tree. I'm sure you've heard of speciation, right ?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Bard of Elyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, but it is only within a specific genus. I mean where I live there are many species of Viper's Bugloss (Echium) and some have white flowers and some have red and others have purple or blue, and some are tall and bushy and others very small, and some are perennial and others are annuals or biennials  but they all share characteristics and all are clearly related. If we take a species of dog (Canis)the same can be said, that all dogs share similar characteristics and that is what I am saying. A dog will always be a dog and an Echium will always be an echium and you cannot hybridise naturally or unnaturally species with a given genus with species from a different genus. You cannot, for example, ever cross a dog with a cat species. You cannot take a species of Viper's Bugloss and cross it with a species of Rose. There are never any examples of how one form of animal or plant became, as per the evolution theory, another, only variations by mutation within a basic framework. That is why we have the term "missing link" because these animals and plants are missing! I agree that extreme variation can take place within a genus of animals or plants but none of these varied species and subspecies ever evolves into a new life-form, only a variation on a model. Millions and billions of years can go by and that basic model remains the same although it may have many variations within its species.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm curious to know where you think the various species came from.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Bard of Elyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Individual species within a genus I can accept as evolving because all plants and animals produce mutations and such mutations can reproduce with others of their type and create more which over generations and being isolated from the form from which they came can become a new variation or species. What I cannot accept is that fish turned into amphibians and amphibians evolved into reptiles that became birds that became mammals and of the many different types of mammals from the primates we evolved. I say again there are no missing links between any of these very different types of life. You might say there are legless lizards and this is how snakes came about but I would say yes, there are legless lizards but you will never be able to hybridise such a reptile with any species of true snake. That missing links die out and that is why they are missing doesn't make much sense seeing as before and after types exist and have not died out such as skinks with very tiny legs so they are virtually legless and skinks with normal legs. They are all skinks. There are no nearly a skink reptiles. They either are or they aren't. There are fish that come out of water and from which it is suggested amphibians like salamanders evolved but where are the between any genus of salamander and any genus of fish animals? The missing link is as always missing!
               I do not know how all the incredible variety of life forms were created, only how variety with a specific genus can come about.
               I do not believe that God made them all in six days and neither do I accept that they just happened to evolve.
               And no one has ever been able to explain to me how the basic life cycle of an insect like a butterfly or moth came about. There are no examples alive or in the fossil record of insects that are almost a chrysalis or pupa and almost an adult from this stage. The insects transform completely from grub/caterpillar to chrysalis/pupa and then adult that bears no resemblance to its earlier form. How did that evolve?

               replyreport
         2. 77

            skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Ah so you're basically hinting for phenomenon other than abiogenesis ? Sorry, i don't buy god dun it. Anything else ?

            replyreport
         3. 60

            Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Doesn't it depends on how strictly you're defining the "basic model," though? Yes, a dog can not interbreed with a cat, but structurally they're very similar to each other. It's not that hard to see how they might have come from a common ancestor millions of years back, and separated by habits or habitat long enough to become completely distinct families.
            
            
            
            
            
            On a wider level, they're both warmblooded, furry animals that produce milk for their offspring: mammals. Technically, all mammals are simply variations on the same basic model, just as all families or genus are, and we DO have fossil evidence of some of the "intermediate steps" between reptile and mammal, including the various therapsid families such as theriodonts and cynodonts. Before that we have some of the intermediate steps between amphibians and reptiles, and between fish and amphibians, and so forth.

            replyreport
4. 64

   simeonvisserposted 13 years ago

   For people like you, an entire website: http://www.notjustatheory.com/

   replyreport
5. 59

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   Just a theory and not a very good one, that primarily serves the purpose of supporting the concept of progress.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No - it primarily supports the explanation of how we and other current species came to be. Be my guest - disprove it. We will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.

      replyreport
6. 85

   Len Cannonposted 13 years ago

   People have no idea what the word "theory" means in regards to science.

   replyreport
7. 59

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   "People have no idea what the word "theory" means in regards to science." So what does it mean?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Len Cannonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A theory is a model created using a wide variety of different scientific observations. Other theories include gravity, relativity, and the idea of plate tectonics.
      
      These aren't wacky guesses.  They're well established phenomenon that are backed by qualified observation.
      
      Theories are the second strongest, most likely scientific truths behind laws. Don't confuse a scientific theory with your theory that your neighbor is talking bad about the color of your house.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Wendy S. Wilmothposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. Many people who have not studied research methodology  confuse theories and hypotheses all the time. A theory is the closest thing we can really have to absolute truth in science. It is based on repeated experimentation and/or observation and it has withstood rigorous scientific debate and scrutiny. A hypothesis is an educated guess that will be tested.  Repeated testing of hypotheses produces theory. It is called the scientific method. Creationism is neither theory nor hypothesis because it eschews the scientific method. - it is just wishful thinking.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Simeon posted a very useful link.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. I consistently get responses on various of my hubs that indicate from the way the word, 'theory' is used, that the writer hasn't the foggiest what it means. They think it means 'idea' or 'belief.'

      replyreport
8. 59

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   Bard of Ely I agree with you totally. I have a theory of my own. A universal gene carried by all living things, that anything can jump in a single generation to something else, depending on the necessities of the environment. Haven't had the time or inclination to work it out or search for evidence. Perhaps whimsical but I like the idea.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why let evidence get in the way of your beliefs?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You won't find any evidence. Nothing changes from one species into another in the space of one generation, and (contrary - apparently - to popular belief) Darwin never said they did. It takes hundreds, thousands, even millions of generations.

      replyreport
9. 77

   skyfireposted 13 years ago

   Universal ?
   
   What's next ? Mythology professors talking about jung theory and biology connection between gods and humans ?

   replyreport
10. 61

    smalikaposted 13 years ago

    still theories can be refuted.. they are not absolute truths,, there is always a margin of error. Darwin was wary of his own theory.. seems like a guy who was desperate for answers... lolz

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Darwin was indeed wary of his own theory.  It was dangerous to him, his family and anyone that might read it.
       
       The theory itself was sound and backed by evidence, but the ramifications stepped very hard on very powerful religious toes.  It took a long time and considerable encouragement and pleading from friends and fellow scientists before he would publish.

       replyreport
11. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "Darwin never said they did. It takes hundreds, thousands, even millions of generations." That's what they used to say about climate change. I don't believe Darwin.

    replyreport
12. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "Nothing changes from one species into another in the space of one generation, and (contrary - apparently - to popular belief)"
    
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Where do it sez wun generation? Dear me.

       replyreport
13. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "Where do it sez wun generation?  Dear me." That's my theory. I'm not a recognized authority. I can say anything I want. The thinking behind this is that life is too precious to lose, and since extreme changes are possible in the physical universe very quickly as the physics of its composition, the assumption would be applicable to all living things. The theory would also posit that this universal gene would be applicable
    to any planet in the galaxy and any galaxy or a universal life function. Can't find evidence for a posit that doesn't exist.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Life is too precious to lose? Lost me. This is the "Education and Science" forum. I think you want the "Irrational beliefs" forum.

       replyreport
14. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "think you want the "Irrational beliefs" forum." You mean where you spend all your time, what's the paraphrase, where all wars come from.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Thats the one. Fighting ignorance as it arises. Sorry you think that is not a worthwhile pursuit. Like all the other religionists.
       
       Hence the wars.

       replyreport
15. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    Got no problem with you Mark Knowles. Quite aware of the contention you are engaged in. But would enjoy seeing you engaged in little more diversity if I may say.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Deleted
       1. 60

          canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Well how about thinking about 'god' this way.  The universe is 14 billion years old (not 6,000), so there could have been some intelligence that came into existence say 12 billion years ago and has evolved so far and so fast that they learned how to create life and shape the universe themselves, conquered all the mysteries of existence and would in our view be as omnipotent as a god, at least to us anyway.  Same way science would seem like magic to people from a few thousand years ago.   Possible?  sure, anything is.  Proof?  hmmm, not yet.

          replyreport
          1. 77

             skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Shaped 2 billion year old universe ? that's far-fetched. Besides this type of god is likely to be non-interfering and has no reason to expect prayers/worships and all the bs that bible throws at us.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Not a 2 billion year old universe, a 12 billion year old one.   Thats probably the time needed to evolve into something beyond our imagination.
                
                I'm just playing the devils advocate here and giving hard core religious people something to grasp onto that has at least has one thing in common with science.

                replyreport
          2. 60

             Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I'm not sure if 2 billion years would be long enough to evolve intelligence, let alone something capable of shaping the development of the rest of the universe.
             
             Remember that the Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old, and took almost 1 billion years for life to start. Then it took nearly 2 billion more before anything multicellular came along, and about a billion after that before we got vertebrates and land plants. Biologically modern humans have only been around for 0.00020 billion years, and it took us 0.00019 billion of those to develop agriculture, let alone any advanced technology. We still don't have space travel capable of getting us to another star system, or even a manned flight to Mars!
             
             I'm sure you could shortcut the process somewhere along the way, but probably not by much more than a few hundred million years, and the intelligence still needs to be interested in going out and seeding the stars. Whales and dolphins are intelligent, for example, but seem perfectly content to hang around eating and singing.

             replyreport
16. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "The universe is 14 billion years old". Think the telephoto that has looked out the furthest is space, is reputably about twelve billion years, shows fully formed galaxies. "they learned how to create life and shape the universe themselves,".
    As likely a possibility as any.

    replyreport
17. 72

    ReptileRevolutionposted 13 years ago

    There are plenty of holes in the "theory" of evolution. Rather than spend time reading the desperate pontifications of antagonistic (and frustrated) atheists, why not do the research yourself?
    
    Read Darwin's Black Box, study the Cambrian Event, and discover why the fossil record is incredibly incomplete. Don't engage in fruitless arguments--it's truly pointless.
    
    One very common, a pitifully overused rationale atheists use to discredit Creationists is the old "earth is obviously more than 6k years old." What they don't realize is, very few Christians believe Earth is 6k years old. No where in the Bible does it reference that either. The Earth is obviously millions upon millions of years old, and it's perfectly in-sync with the Bible.
    
    Sure, animals can change to suit their environments. Natural selection, whatever you want to call it. But the belief that life came from nothing? Come on people, you're more intelligent than that.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       of course it's easier to believe man was formed out of dirt & woman from a rib

       replyreport
    2. 60

       Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Actually, Gallup polls conducted over the last ~30 years have consistently shown that the number of Americans who believe that God created humans in their present form some time in the last 10,000 years (40-47%) outnumbers the number of Americans who believe He guided the process over millions of years (35-40%) and those who believe a god or gods was not involved (9-16%).
       
       http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four- … onism.aspx
       
       It's not quite the same thing as saying the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but pretty telling anyway, since most of those 40-47% presumably do believe that.

       replyreport
       1. 89

          wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Now that's a scary thought.  To think that 40% of the people running this country are that ignorant of the most basic facts of biology, geology, history, etc.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I was surprised when I was researching my evolution hubs that the US was so behind with accepting modern science

             replyreport
             1. 81

                TahoeDocposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                BB...you may like this guy's take. Just a short monologue, but funny.
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9uIMR8yCPg

                replyreport
    3. 60

       canadawest99posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Life didn't come from nothing, it evolved from a simpler form.  A few billion years ago, the earth was a primitive place with liquid water and carbon compounds along with other trace elements.   That was early in the life of the solar system and there was also a lot of extra debris moving about such as comets and asteroids which struck the earth and seeded it with even more elements.  Lightening provided the spark that allowed these long chain primordial compounds to combine with others to form amino acids, the basic building block of life and from there, evolution was off to the races.    Scientists have created simple amino acids the same way right in the lab.

       replyreport
    4. 71

       getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Good advice
       
       
       
       
       Thanks for correcting those antagonistic atheist.
       
       
       
       lolololololololololololol!!!  "perfectly in-synce with the bible?  The bible is not even in-sync with the bible.
       
       
       
       But your God can come from nothing, I guess?  Thanks for "educatin" us antagonistic atheist.  Now we are more intelligent---thanks to you.

       replyreport
18. 90

    melporposted 13 years ago

    Evolution is no longer a theory. There are hundreds of scientific results that support and explain evolution today. The process of evolution can even be observed under a shorter period of time through the study of genetics.

    replyreport
19. 81

    TahoeDocposted 13 years ago

    I went to a rural public school in a poor old mining town of western Pennsylvania. Nothing fancy, just the very basics.
    
    I remember learning in 8th grade science class about scientific theories and how they are different from philosophical or other suppositions. This was basic knowledge.
    
    I'm still shocked when I find people are not familiar with this concept or conveniently pretend not to be so as to further their own agenda. Has our educational system really fallen that far back? Or are people in self-imposed denial?

    replyreport
20. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "Has our educational system really fallen that far back? Or are people in self-imposed denial?" Well I'm the idiot here. You tell me which one?

    replyreport
21. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    "To think that 40% of the people running this country are that ignorant of the most basic facts of biology, geology, history, etc.". But could they get elected if they weren't?

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Ha!  You're probably right, at that.  The 40% of the voters in the same dismal state make a pretty big voting block.

       replyreport
22. 61

    smalikaposted 13 years ago

    Darwin had little means to prove his theory at the time he cooked it up,, he hoped that in time evidence will be uncovered to support his theory, but to the man's misfortune the evidence uncovered over the period of 150 years since his 'origin of species' seems to refute the theory..
    
    http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural … _1_02.html
    
    Darwin in his own letter to his colleagues expressed his doubts over the theory,, saying it was 'highly hypothetical' and that we should use 'imagination', yes imagination to fill the 'wide gaps'.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       White Teethposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       If by “refute” you mean that evolution has become one of the cornerstones of modern biology in every scientific journal and just about every frickin university on the planet…then yes, it has been “refuted”…and if you mean by “refuted” that the only opposition is a bunch of religious whack-jobs who never took a science class past 9th or 10th grade…then yes it has been “refuted”…

       replyreport
    2. 93

       Susana Sposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Darwin came up with a hypothesis based on observation and formulated a theory - this is what scientists do. Over the last 150 years many thousands of other scientists from a wide variety of disciplines, have added to and picked apart parts of the theory based on observation and experiment some elements of the theory have been developed, some have been shown to be on the right track but inaccurate.
       
       For instance Darwin did not comprehend the role of environmental factors in evolution - this is a later development. This is how science works.
       
       Let me ask you if you believe in the periodic table?
       
       When the first few elements were discovered most people didn't believe it to be true, even the scientists that discovered them didn't understand what they had found because at that time they had a very different explanation for what things were made of. Over a period of several hundred years, thousands of man hours and a lot of experimentation what we understand now as the periodic table came to be discovered in all its glory.
       
       Evolution is currently in that process, well far along it in fact. The theory is not 100% complete, but there is such a weight of evidence for it that to say that evolution is false is really ridiculous.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          If this forum had a Like button, I would Like this post. Well put.

          replyreport
          1. 93

             Susana Sposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Thanks. Enjoying your replies too

             replyreport
    3. 60

       Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       *sigh*
       
       That site is thousands upon thousands of words of pseudo-scientific nonsense leading to the conclusion that God created everything.
       
       I'm personally open to the possibility that He (or She, or They ) did, but contrary to what the site suggests, there are multiple different non-supernatural hypotheses about the reasons for the Cambrian explosion and just because one of them has not been "proven" does not mean that one or more of them is not correct.
       
       Also, the Cambrian explosion took place over 70-80 million years, not 5 million years, as the site claims at least once. It's still the evolutionary blink of an eye, but 70-80 million years ago the dinosaurs were still around and our own ancestors weighed about 4.5 pounds and looked something like this, so I think you can agree that it's still a pretty long time!
       
       Just as a side note, the site's repeated insistence that Darwinism claims that life progresses from simple to more complex forms is irritating the heck out of me. Evolution is not a simple linear progression. Creatures evolve to fit specific niches, not to "progress" to some "higher" form. Single celled organisms are obviously still around and if we're going by sheer mass (let alone population), they far outweigh us and every single other vertebrate on the planet. They have, in fact, colonized us, inside and out. From a bacteria's perspective, we're nothing but fancy mobile homes.
       
       Creatures such as sharks and horseshoe crabs haven't changed much physically for hundreds of millions of years because their environment hasn't changed much for hundreds of millions of years. They're already perfectly adapted to their niche. The environment of our ancestors, on the other hand, changed many times over the last ~70 million years. This is the only reason you need to know why we "progressed" beyond a 4.5 pound, squirrel-like creature. You can claim God made the environment change, and maybe He did. I can't prove that He didn't. But there are perfectly reasonable non-supernatural explanations, too.

       replyreport
    4. 64

       simeonvisserposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Why is that? Because in his era religion still reigned and his views would go directly against the idea that man is the most important creation by God. Darwin got his ideas out, provided evidence for it (yes) and more and more evidence has been found over the years.
       
       It took him many years before he decided to release The Origin of Species. Not because of his own problems with the theory but due to the possible religious objections of others who can't handle these ideas.

       replyreport
23. 59

    knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

    Personally think the only one qualified to be president is Judge Judy.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       jelliott115posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Isn't the theory of gravity a.....
       
       I'm apparently always late..

       replyreport
24. 67

    superwagsposted 13 years ago

    Yes, it's just a theory. So is a heliocentric solar system, continental drift and gravity.
    
    There are thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils in the record.

    replyreport
25. 62

    qeylerposted 13 years ago

    The term 'theory'  can be defined as 'best guess based on all the evidence we have so far'.  It closer to fact than it is to fantasy, but it is not fact.
    
    Most people who have studied the evidence recognise evolution. For example; if you see suits of armour that were actually worn at the time, people were a lot shorter at that time then today.  People have gotten taller.  Life spans have also gotten longer.
    
    (Just selecting a fairly easy to see aspect that is of extremely recent).
    
    Considering members of our species have been around for about 5 million years one can assume that there were many such developments.
    
    One of the interesting things, is that Genesis 1 speaks of evolution. Darkness/light  sea/land  sea life/lizards/birds mammals.
    
    It is only recently that scientists have put birds as the decendents of lizards and not a mammalian offspring..(bringing scientific evolution more in line with Biblical evolution).
    
    The problem the fundies have is that they keep translating 'day' into a 24 hour one.  If they left the time line blank there would not be this kind of conflict.   Further, if they read their Bibles with a bit more knowledge they would get much of the symbolism

    replyreport