Is this true about DARWIN'S THEORY?

Question

If I drop my presuppositiuon of naturalism, there isn't any compelling evidence that the neo- Darwinian theory is true!

What his evidence does is supports micro evolution- a change within limits. In that case even the most conservative fundamentalists agree with this, since they believe all human races are descended from a single pair of human ancestral pair. (Adam and Eve). sO THEREFORE CHANGE WITHIN CERTAIN TYPES IS SO BIG DEAL!

Answer 1

Yeah and where do Adam and Eve come from?

Darwin's theory explains their origin a lot better, as does millions of years of fossil records.

The Bible served as an explanation for the natural world until science came along, just as astrology came before astronomy and alchemy before chemisty.

Astrology is not true, alchemy is not true and the Bible is not "true". It is a metaphorical, ancient interpretation of the natural world, created by  a tribe of desert nomads with no scientific credentials to say the least.

Answer 2

No, it is not true.  There is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution.  Any change between successive generations of an organism is evolution.  Small changes eventually add up to dramatic changes.

Answer 3

If you drop the presupposition of naturalism, I think you forfeit your right to be taken seriously in any scientific discussion.

Answer 4

If you drop your presuppositiuon of naturalism, then you are no longer doing science.

And yes, thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils.  Maybe you should try going to a natural history museum sometime.

Answer 5

Darwin is the figurehead of the idea of evolution, but he is certainly not it's only author.  Since Darwin made it famous it has become vastly supported by fossil and DNA evidence which he never knew about.  And, yes, the evidence does support macroevolution.

Answer 6

If your worldview requires that you find a way to explain everything apart from God then Evolution is your best alternative.

If you don't have that presupposition then Intelligent Design is a better argument.

So, if you have decided God didn't do it, then He didn't.

If you have decided that He COULD have done it, then He probably did.

Answer 7

That's a scientific claim, and it's very easy to prove. Just establish that some genes are immune to mutation.  

Answer 8

I also read that Darwin thought a bear evolved into a whale.. not even kidding.

I support micro-evolution. Not macro.  

Answer 9

Never bow before creation lies

Answer 10

Microevolution leads to macroevolution. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

[edit:] RoCkStars *Wife* - You have a horrible understanding of evolution. I suggest that you do some research on it.

Answer 11

Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over a great expanse of time.

Answer 12

I wuz walkin' down the street'n I dunno!!

Answer 13

Spot on, brother!

from the mouth of a scientist, and a christian.

God bless you and your revelation

EDIT:

so far, no transition fossils have been found

Moreover, ontologically, scientist found that what seems to be the first organism (if we were to trace down the genealogical tree) is not the simplest creature ever lived. Which goes against evolution, by definition, because we would have gone from more complex to simple....

Darwin refuted such possibility.

Kershbob, learn your grammar!!

We say "she would HAVE got" not "she would of got"....

oh boy...

Answer 14

Verifiable visible laboratory evidence of macroevolution is still completely absent.

Answer 15

Spend a lifetime of open minded research on the subject, without an agenda, and your opinion on the evidence will matter.  Until then, I'll leave it to those who have, and take them on their word on the points I don't understand.

Science has only been in the forefront for a century or two, and to this day it has the shackles of religion holding it back.  Christianity had thousands of years to come up with answers, and the best it could do was;

"God glued the flat earth to space and set the sun in motion around it, then he created man from dirt and woman from a rib.  Then a snake made them eat fruit, which is of course the cause of all today's problems".  

But science has to have all the answers up front or its a "conspiracy".  

Maybe if people hadn't been getting killed by christians for claiming the world was round, science would be further along right now.  Is the answer to r****d progress even more?  Don't you see a pattern?

Science is indifferent to who believes what.  There are truths independent of what anyone or everyone believes.  It is the job of a scientist to find them and disclose them, not to make judgments about them.  Accept that others know more than you, its a fact of life for everyone.  "God did it" is no more of an answer than was available in the dark ages, or even through primitive religion.  They weren't right about the earth, and they killed people who were.  What makes you think that they have this one spot on?

Answer 16

Why is it impossible for you to understand that a series of thousands of micro-evolutions effectively adds up to a macro-evolution?  Eventually, an isolated but slowly changing population becomes so divergent it is no longer able to breed back into the original gene pool.  That amounts to the emergence of a new species, achieved through geographical isolation and a long series of mico-evolutions.

Not only that, but there are other ways for new species to emerge.  Check-out "chromosome fusion," if you wish to understand the current best explanation for the origin of humanity (and the modern horse).

Answer 17

Hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils refute your claim.

The idea that Macro evolution doesn't take place has been falsified by observation:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

Changes in these lizards digestive tracts amount to Macro Evolution.

Answer 18

Microevolution is a term coined by creationists.

If any change is taking place in the genetics of a population evolution is taking place.

Oh and "Eve" is a name used to describe the hypothetical idea of a first women being traceable through mitochondrial DNA. She would of got this mitochondrial DNA from her parents who would be slightly less than homo sapien.

"presuppositiuon [sic] of naturalism" doesn't exist. I can come to the same conclusions without knowing all these things and this is observable fact ie children in schools (schools that actually educate) asking questions on comparative anatomy BEFORE they even enter secondary school.

Same old Creationist nonsense.

Answer 19

Alright, let us accept your presumption that there is a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.  There isn't, but let's accept for the sake of argument there is...

What mechanism do you propose to prevent 3.5 billion years of microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Answer 20

If you drop a supposition of naturalism you're not doing science. The lack of "compelling evidence" has more to do with your blatant lack of understanding of science than with an actual lack of evidence as the Theory of Evolution is the most well-supported theory in history. Without evolution, nothing in biology would make any sense.

As for your comment on the Mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosome Adam, they lived in completely different time periods, tens of thousands of years apart. They're only called Adam and Eve because scientists often use cultural references in their names.