why would anyone accept evolution?

Question

i don't deny micro-evolution, as in the ability to adapt to our surroundings... (BTW i am a devout Christian)

what i cant wrap my head around is this whole evolution thing right up until we "left the water?"

from what i heard (and please correct me if i am wrong) we start as micro-organisms and eventually leave the water and start up on land...

now if i was to say, take a fish and throw it on the ground. it would die right?
now lets say i did this with a different fish every day for 10 million years... would these fish eventually adapt to it and start to breath air? keep in mind the simple fact that fish die out of water and cannot spread any genetic code that might further adaptation... so how the hell did we leave the water? and wouldn't it be more efficient just to stay there in the first place (more food, no need for shelter, more hospitable climate)?

evolution from primal human to modern human makes a little more sense, but i just don't understand... why.... all this happens

Answer 1

Evolution is not based on statistics. It's based on fossils.

Fossils are enclosed in rocks and the age of those rocks can be determined quite well e.g. by looking at the radioactive elements in them.

Also there were no big steps like a fish suddenly deciding to live on land. It were many small steps. Lets say some species of fish lives at the cost and to escape a predator they are sometimes jumping on land and then wiggling back into the water. They can only survive on land for a few minutes. The fish that can survive on land the longest will have a higher chance to escape the predator and survive. Those fish then slowly evolve. After millions of years they can survive on land much longer and have also developed stronger fins so they can get back into the water more easily. Then they might start to lay their eggs on land because there they have a higher chance to survive. Then they evolve lungs. And so on.



Also I think christianity and evolution work well together. Have you ever seen god do something that violates the laws of physics? He doesn't. Everything he does he does in accordance with the rules of physics. Did Mozart ever violate the laws of music? Did he put notes in his compositions that don't actually exist? I don't think so.

So if you wanted to create biological life forms without breaking the laws of physics and you had all the time you wanted to do it, what would you do?

I think evolution is a brilliant concept.

Answer 2

Your analogy of throwing the fish out of water is flawed. The animals don't change to suit the environment...especially if they die from the environmental change, since this means they would have no opportunity to pass along the mutation.



In truth, the mutations happen before the environmental changes. What happens then is that the "mutated" creature is accidentally better equipped to thrive, and it has an opportunity to breed (perhaps more than just once). It then passes on this genetic mutation, and therefore, its offspring have this improved ability, and can continue to bring that genetic mutation to the gene pool. Almost every generation brings with it a genetic mutation (this is actually healthy for EVERY species...mixing up the gene pool is a good thing!). Sometimes, the unfortunate genetic mutations are passed to another generation. But if they are significant enough to cause problems, the animal won't be seen as a viable breeder, and won't have a chance to pass these on. After several generations of the "original" mutation being bred into the animals, it is no longer considered a mutation...it's normal. Subsequent generations bring their own mutations, and as long as the good ones stay, and the bad ones don't, newer, better breeds can come along.



Since not all of the species would be bred from the one mutation, you end up with some that were like the original, and some that are different. After enough generations of seeing both the "original" and the "new" animals, we categorize them as individual species.



If you're familiar with amphibians, you'll know that there are animals that can live both in and out of the water. There is some supposition by scientists that says we moved out of the water by being amphibious, and then mutated into land-only animals.



There was a ton of food on land, as long as the animals were vegetarians. Also, there were no predators on the land, so it was the ideal place for an animal to be.



The theory does not involve ANY major changes. All of them were virtually unnoticeable when they happened. We didn't just one day wake up and there were new creatures that didn't exist yesterday. It took millions and millions of years for these tiny mutations to add up into something that was noticeable.



My personal belief is that creation & evolution as theories go hand in hand. I believe it is entirely possible that our all-knowing God created a situation that allowed our planet to evolve into what we know today. I also think that it is an insult to God, to think that he would have created the planet as it was described in the Bible...How boring that would have been for him!



I hope this helps clarify a little, but I'm sure my explanation isn't doing it justice. I highly recommend that you find a book at your local library that would express it in more detail. There's a lot of logic behind it.



Also, remember that it's just a theory. None of us will ever be able to prove if it's right or wrong (or both).

Answer 3

A fish's DNA gets hit by radiation from a solar flare (for example) and the resulting fish's children afterwards end up as mudskipper fish with lungs and gills. At some point some of the mudskipper fish like it on land better than in the water, but only the ones with more rigid fins can escape predators and thus eventually the flimsy finned fish are all eaten and the rigid finned fish can survive on land. More genetic mutations later and the rigid fins are now legs and they eat bananas.... etc.



The problem is noone really knows for sure, but there is evidence of evolution (fossils etc.), but the only evidence of creationism is the fact that we exist.

Answer 4

People accept evolution because there is compelling evidence for it. It is obvious from the details of your question that the only evidence you have allowed yourself to see comes from creationist websites, or straight from the pulpit, because your misunderstanding of what the theory says, and of how evolution works, is absolutely breathtaking. Individuals of a species do not evolve - species as a whole do, over enormous spans of time, little by little. You say that you have no difficulty with so-called microevolution. Can you not see that macroevolution is just microevolution repeated over time? It's comparable to believing in a single step, but not a staircase.

I recommend to you the following websites, which can explain evolution to you much better than I can, if you will remove the beam that is in your eye, if I may use a biblical metaphor.





http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html



You might also wish to try reading a biology textbook, or some popular literature on the topic. In any case, you should stop believing what people who have an agenda are telling you, because they are either lying, or as badly misinformed as you seem to be. Science has no agenda but verifiable truth.



One thing more. Science is absolutely NOT in conflict with christianity, nor with any other religion. To accept evolution, you do not have to reject your faith. PLEASE, see the website below.



http://www.thefirstsixdays.com/ClergyLetterProject.htm

Answer 5

You're right. If you took a lungless fish and threw it on the ground, it would not survive. If you did this over and over again, it would not survive. But this is actually a reversed over-simplification of theories explaining amphibian evolution. Its more plausible that fish adapted to breathing atmospheric air whilst still in the water, then after thousands of years of evolution and adaptation, slowly moved to a land based life. Certain prehistoric fish species with very primitive lungs or lung-like tissue adapted to breathing air in order to take advantage of oxygen present in the atmosphere when concentrations in low quality, stagnant water were lower because of overgrowth of plant life.



Eventually, after hundreds or thousands of generations living in lower water levels, their ventral fins developed additional joint and muscle strength allowing them to support some of their body weight. Dry land that was now heavy in plant life became more appetizing as predatory fish grew in numbers. As their dependence on the water faded, life on land provided an untapped niche and protection from predators.



This website provides more information: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/3/text_pop/l_043_41.html

Answer 6

umm ok i guess there might be a few thing in that theory that we dont understand but still. this has actually had some scientific evidence and on the other hand the bible and all that has no real proof. so far it seems this is the more reliable theory then just a book with tales in it. now im not saying that the bible isnt tru or that god dosnt exist im just saying stop and think about it a second.

Answer 7

I think you need to know more about fish.



Fish have gills, but some of them also breathe air. The "siameese fighting fish" is probably the most famaliar example. These fish (bettas) are members of a group of fish who have developed a special structure which can absorb oxygen from the atmosphere. In fact, a betta will actually drown if it can't reach the surface at least once every 20 minutes. A fish that can drown? Yes!



Although it breathes air, bettas can't leave the water. However many fish can. The "climbing" perch (another air breathing relative of the betta) uses bony spines along the undersides of its gill flaps to drag itself along dry land. This allows the fish to travel between lakes and streams. An unrelated species, the snakehead, was a media sensation because of its land traveling abilities. It could supposedly travel nearly a mile on a damp, cool night to decimate native fish populations.



The fish which was supposedly our ancestor is called a lungfish. It has a long tube attached to its escophagus. It is eel like in shape and instead of fins, has two pairs of threadlike appendages it uses to crawl through underwater vegetation. It lives in seasonal pools in tropical climates. These bodies of water dry up during the summer and the fish burrows into the mud. It forms a slimey ball which dries into a waterproof shell. The fish can live in bone dry earth for up to a year, breathing air.



If you can iagine evolution happening right up to the point of land living organisms it should not be hard to fill in the rest of the picture. Remember, fish certainly were nothing like the single, microscopic bacterial cells which were the ancestors of all life on earth. Evolution is easy to accept for me because of biochemistry. If one examines animals and plants on a molecular level there are many more similarities than differences. Every living thing on earth uses glucose for chemical energy and preforms the identical set of biochemical reactions in order to obtain the energy. The only real difference is the structure of the enzymes which drive the process. The enzymes in turn are adapted for the particular environment the organism lives in, be it the air, the land or hypersaline brine at nearly the boiling point of water.



You are probably an American protestant. Catholics have accepted evolution worldwide and European protestants are far more secular than their fundamentalist American cousins. I don't really understand why American protestants can't accept evolution, but my theory is it links man directly to nature which Americans find unacceptable. American culture has always been one of exploitation and it is easier to exploit nature if one convinces themselves it is inferior to humanity.



FYI: The "separation of church and state" quoted by many conservatives is ignorant propaganda. The consitiution mearly decrees "no state shall pass laws favoring one religion over another one". Technically, this is not a "separation" of powers and allows America to be a kind of theocracy, although it constantly denies it.

Answer 8

Have you ever heard of walking catfish?



These are fish that will pull themselves across dry land to get to new bodies of water. They are fish that are adapted to temporarily survive on land.



How about lungfish? Fish that can actually breath oxygen. They actually breath air.



You are talking about just any fish. What you need to imagine is a fish that has adaptations that allow it to survive on land and away from the water. The first species probably could only survive a short amount of time on land but the species evolved into one that could last longer and longer until it no longer needed to live in the water. It is an incredible niche to fill. Lots of food and at the time few predators.



Ok, so you are saying that the fish portion of your claim is not important. However, more than half of your original question was devoted to it. You speak of holes in the theory but also say that you are uneducated about all of this. Why do you think there are holes in the theory if you are uneducated about it? Can you give examples of some of these other problems? Please do not toss out the thermodynamics problems that some people say are holes in the theory. The theories concerning thermodynamics deal with closed systems and Earth is not a closed system. There are many natural processes that will organize matter rather than make it more disorganized. Life in general is an example of this. So, please discuss your other problems with the theory of evolution. Maybe we can clarify things.





Regarding one of you additional detail remarks

"nobody is actually answering my real question here...

how does the one fish that adapts spread its seed to the other fish? its the only one and will die off long before another one comes around"

The fish did not just one day go from water to land. You would have had fish that would go up on land to take advantage of resources there. They would be like the walking catfish or mudskippers. They live in the water but have evolved an ability to survive out of the water for short periods of time. Their reproduction still happens in the water. These animals will go on land and then return to the water. After enough time the fish evolve to be able to survive longer periods of time on land. After awhile you will have a creature that is mostly a land animal but does spend quite a bit of time in the water, such as an amphibian. It was not an overnight thing.



Another reply to an additional detail remark.

"call me stupid, but if a guy writes a book about how life began after looking at a few cells, and then another dude and his buddy parts the sea and cures peoples horrible diseases... i am inclined to tell Poindexter to shove his book you know where..."

You had asked people to treat you nicely. Some people might have responded to you poorly but if you want nice treatment then you need to keep your own remarks civil. I think there is a book somewhere that says something like "Do onto others as you would have done onto you".





Another reply to an additional detail remark

"also, i am fairly uneducated on the subject so please be nice...

what i am really looking for is an explanation as to why anyone would accept a theory with so many HUGE holes and gaps, especially when it can't actually be recreated in a lab (i don't mean adaptation, i mean REALLY big changes in physiology as described in he theory)"



Umm, actually science can replicate evolution. Scientists have been working with E. coli bacteria since 1988. There have been over 44,000 generations of bacteria. The bacteria of today is different from the bacteria they started with. In fact, they created a new strain that could eat citrate. Normally, E. coli cannot do that. Over 44,000 generations a new strain developed that can eat citrate. The bacteria evolved to take advantage of this. From the research the scientists have learned that it was not just a single mutation that allowed this to happen but a series of mutation over the generations.

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

Why science cannot do this with something a bit more complex such as mice? Notice that it said 44,000 generations. A mouse can hit breeding age in 25-40 days. Gestation is around 20 days. So lets say 45 days from birth to birth of offspring. That would take 5,424 years to get 44,000 generations. That is under optimal conditions mind you. In the wild it would take much longer. Bacteria breed much faster and results can be seen much quicker. More complex life forms will need thousands of years to get noticeable results.

Answer 9

Your question is very good...because you are right in that if you take a fish and throw it on the ground, it would die pretty quickly. If you threw a person in the water, they would also die pretty quickly; so, what gives?



Let's take a step back. Evolution from a fish to a lizard, let alone a fish to a human requires a really long time. I mean, a REALLY LONG time. 100's of millions of years.



Let's take a random species of fish that lives in water with a whole bunch of other fish, bacteria, plants, etc, that are all competing against that species for food, space, or just want to eat it. Now, throw a random mutation, (which is the key to evolution -- both micro and macro) one female fish decides to lay its eggs up on the shore instead of right in front of predators. (See grunions) These fish survive because the eggs can hatch, while those that haven't evolved do not. Millions of years later, one of the fish just happens to have stronger-than-average muscles attaching the fins to its skeleton, meaning that now not only can it quickly flop up onto land to lay eggs, it can actually sit up for very brief periods of time, and even navigate itself to nest and sea again. This fish, while by no means amphibious, can now for very short periods of time escape predators by jumping onto land, lay eggs on land, etc. Most of the others of its species can't do that, and so now that creates a whole new species as well. (See lungfish) These adaptations continue until eventually the animal develops rudimentary lung capacity, meaning it can live both on land AND in the sea. (see salamanders) Now, we have in less than a minute cover the course of 10s of millions of years, going all the way from a fish that can't even approach the shore, to an animal that has little leg-like appendages, rudimentary lungs, and the ability to lay eggs on land...



Now, we fast-forward, and we have gone from water-born single celled organisms, to very basic multicelled organisms, to simple fish, to bony fish, to amphibians, to lizards, to mammals, to people. (Birds are another off shoot of lizards.)

Answer 10

Mutation and adaption. It is like a predator catching its prey. After awhile the prey will adapt and mutate into another form to fend off the predator. Then after a while the predator runs out of food, begins to adept and mutate into something different. I believe rattle snakes has adapted to us and lost there rattle which in turn keeps them alive longer because we are no long killing them off.



So if you took a fish out of the sea and put it on land and repeated it for 10 million year. That fish would adapt and be able to breathe air.



I believe in evolution.



Edit



Thanks for the thumbs down, however it is true though.





Still wondering how the fish adapt. After 10 million years of you picking a particular fish out of the sea and put it on land. The cells begin to mutate and eventually the fish which is now a new species can live out of the sea. It has adapted to you.

Answer 11

There was food up on the land. Google for "mudskipper"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper

to see an example of a fish that looks for food on land.

Edit:

> it seems people are really easy to convince with a few statistics



It's even easier to convince people with no evidence and no statistics whatsoever. That's called "religion" and "faith." Even Mulder of the X-Files had a poster in his office that read, "I want to believe."

Answer 12

Theres a good number o fish that are adapted to living on land temporarily. Theres also a good number of mammals that have adapted to living in water.

Answer 13

ok well,

apparently we were sort of reptiles not fish so we could walk on land and as we got eaten by other things we thought "i would be safer on land" so thats what we did and we addapted

im not sure how it happens and although i believe the thoery of evolution i must admit there are some rather large holes



we change in order to adapt to new situations, like how some people change personality around different people well like that but on a bigger scale.



hope you get the answers your looking for

bee

xx

Answer 14

I'm also a Christian, and I can't understand why you can't understand it:



Better Example: A disease breaks out on earth and kills everybody except 15 people who are immune to it survive and repopulate the earth, next time the disease returns, but now the whole earth is immune.



Even better example: Global warming causes temperatures to rise uncontrollably everybody dies except for a few people who live in the Sahara and are used to heat they repopulate the earth.



God is definitely smart enough to devise a way to disguise our origin, remember God wants us to believe in him:

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1)