Human Evolution?

Question

Three questions in one. 1. Why do creationists even bother looking at this kind of question? 2. Will they be able to resist posting an answer claiming there's no such thing as human evolution. 3. Is it okay to call creationists non-evolved humans?

Answer 1

1. I don't know!!!!

2. Maybe or maybe not? We have free will.

3. NO! How you think and what you say is not different and doesn't matter at all! It is just a waste of time.

Answer 2

1) Because they see it as a challenge to their belief system and like to comment about it.



2) Probably not.



3) Unfortunately, no. For starters, among things alive today, there's no such thing as less evolved or more evolved. To be able to rank things in that way would imply that evolution has a purpose, or a drive, which was to create us. This is a completely wrong way to look at evolution, and makes it little more than a scientific sounding version of Genesis, or "intelligent design" or some such thing. The truth is that you and I are every bit as evolved as cockroaches, burmuda grass, snowy egrets, blue footed boobies, parameciums, and everything else alive at this moment, and not one bit more evolved. All things living right now have passed down through the same period of development, and succeeded in finding a niche and surviving, and so are all equally evolved. Even if they're of a form that appeared much earlier, the fact that this form continues to this day still means it's passed as much of an evolutionary challenge as things which have more recently developed.

Answer 3

1. They are under the dilusion that they can convince scientists (and rational human beings in general) that evolution is false by quoting scripture and providing innacurate and/or irrelevent data. I think creationists feel obliged to try to convince us evolution is false just like we try to convince them that the theory of evolution is supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence and intelligent design is not even a scientific theory. Unfortunately for them they happen to be wrong.



2. Nope. They'll still post their scripture and jibberish even though it doesn't even address the question. But at least you're not going to choose it as the best answer :) It always bugs me when people do that.



3. They're not non-evolved humans because all species evolve. While it's tempting to think of evolution as leading towards modern human intelligence, it doesn't really work that way. Even bacteria are just as highly evolved as we are, in that they've been evolving just as long as we have. I prefer the theory that creationists right that they are all decended from only two individuals about 6000 years ago (but they're wrong about where those two people came from), and are therefore terribly inbred.

Answer 4

Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution.There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.Science itself refutes Darwinism.



• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.



• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.



• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute



• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."



• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.



• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:

• Scales had to have mutated into hair.

• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.

• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.



• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.



• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.



• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml



• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:



• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm



• Living "Fossils"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm



• The Cambrian Explosion

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm



• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm



• "Missing Links"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm

Answer 5

You've seen Avatar one to many times. "there's no denying" Actually, science DOES deny many of these things and denies them quite well. Dreams do NOT accurately predict future events, and even when they do it is usually a self-fulfilling prophesy ("I dreamed I was living in New York so I moved to New York") or one of a number of known outcomes ("I dreamed I got this job I was applying for" - yes, because getting it or not getting it were the only possible options). And while some people have anecdotes of not getting on a plane because they'd dreamed it would crash, there is not one verifiable, documented case of anyone waking up and writing down or informing officials in advance that a particular plane would crash PRIOR to the plane actually crashing. And Mentalists read body language, yes, a skill that is not supernaturally "connected" to other people in any way, but one that can be easily learned by anyone with the patience to do so (and easily deceived by those who want to do so). My advice is learn about statistics, probability, and coincidence because that's how much of the real world operates.

Answer 6

1. They must examine this kind of question as they are motivated (a) by religious belief, which tries to answer the question: "Why are we here?" (b) they are driven by a deep-seated insecurity which makes them ask the question: "Why am i here?". Any other answer other than "GOD" would plunge them into the depths of existential despair.

2. Probably not (see answer from the guy who seems to be wearing a hat, who has, in the spirit of free speech, reported you for abuse.)

3.Definitely not. Organisms are neither 'evolved' or 'non-evolved', but in the process of evolving!

Answer 7

1. What sort of creationism are you referring to?

2. Do you have any idea of the details of evolutionary theory?

3. Have you ever seen the highly dogmatic and unreasonable Richard Dawkins in full preacher mode?



Step outside your own blinkered, ill-informed and unchalleneged beliefs.



FYI: I believe in microevolution, think that macroevolution is probably true, and that evolutionary psychology is bunkum.

Answer 8

1. They can't allow someone to have a thought grounded in logic; that attacks their religion.

2. No

3. Kind of harsh, but it works

Answer 9

1. It goes against their belief that we were just put here.

2.No, they want to say "I'm right, their wrong!"

3.Yes. That's what they believe, after all.

Answer 10

it's so riduculous this human evolution thing

1-why todays monkeys didnt involved in that

2-if we were monkeys then we are human,whats next?horses!!!

3-ive heard that hasters ADN is like the human ADN by 99percent its more logic to say we were hasters,but hamsters dont look like us;so we are monkeey!!! damn!!

Answer 11

1. I'm a smart...one.

2. No. Read Creation (Genesis 1:1-25).

3. WHAT THE HECK?????????????!!!!!!!!!!! No!!!!!!

Answer 12

Macro-evolution is our modern day fairy tale.