What do you think about Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Question

Do you agree or disagree and why?

Answer 1

i think its a theory....darwin himself recognized this and was amazed that people started taking it as fact...evolutionist must have alot of faith

Answer 2

it's just another religion. Full of holes, logically, but since scientists have proven, over and over, that they are every bit as loathe to admit "we JUST DON'T KNOW" as the most narrow-minded fundamentalist clerics, it has made the transition in their minds from theory to fact. Darwin, has, in fact, assumed the rank of a diety in their minds.

Where is the evidence that any species ever "evolved" into another? And yeah, I know all about the moths that change color. I'm not talking about goal driven mutation in an existing species, I'm talking about one species birthing another. We're supposed to accept that the extinct monkeys they dig up every so often and claim are human ancestors are convincing evidence of this. Why?

Where are the transitional fossils? Did a rat just suddenly give birth to a bat?

If it was all just a matter of random, mathematical selection, why don't extinct species outnumber extent species by a factor of hundreds of millions?

I don't claim to know exactly how the species that exist now came into being, but I do know Darwin's "theory" comes up woefully short when it comes to explaining it. What it's proponents have been extremely successful at is painting anyone that dare attack their heap of psuedoscience as a religious loon, and thereby, premptively, discrediting anything they have to say. Well, I'm not a Christian, nor a religious fanatic, which is precisely why I don't subscribe to the Darwinists' brand of fanaticism.

Read Behe's book. He rips their nonsense apart better than I can in the space available here. While you are at it, read a few books on quantum mechanics.

It always amazes me that, as supposedly intelligent beings themselves, scientists could react as violently as they do to the mere mention of the possibility that there are intelligent forces driving the workings of the universe. But try bringing up that possibility and you will be lumped in with people that believe God created the universe in six days and loafed on the seventh.

Answer 3

The theory of evolution is well supported by the evidence and can be considered a fact. We know withholding only provisional doubt that all life is related to a population of unicellular ancestors that lived approximately 3.9 billion years ago. Our closest living relatives are the common chimpanzee, which share 98% of our DNA. The last common ancestor between humans and chimps lived around 6 million years ago, when then  two lineages split.

Answer 4

Well I disagree with his theory but admired Darwin.  He was honest enough to say when writing Origin of Species that it was just a theory that it would take time for the fossil record to prove or disprove what he thought may be true.  You have to respect that.

I do not see this kind of honesty however in modern evolutionary science.

Answer 5

"Science" the way a lot of people put it IS their religion. Evolutionists believe in the god of Chance and Natural Selection. There has to be someone or something doing the creating, so they just make sure not to include the name god making it sound different.

In reality, you can put just as much faith in science as you can a god of the water.

For a person to desire to believe in something is innate, which makes you wonder why. I believe in the God of the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ.

So I disagree.

Answer 6

i think its a joke..hes a r****d

Answer 7

I think it is very interesting.

Answer 8

This is a curious question.  His theory is laid out meticulously, as he formulated it (not as it was re-cast by Thomas Henry Huxley) in his book, _The Origin of Species_.  Though the book was written in the 1800's, it is still readable and very much worth the read before criticizing ideas that aren't even in it (such as the notion that man descended from apes).  Darwin was also, at least at the time he set out on his first voyage as the naturalist on the HMS Beagle, a Christian apologist (one who believes in and defends that position) whose only reservations were the notion that the earth was only 6000 years old (both the fossil record and scientific evidence at the time suggested otherwise) and that species were created as-is (his experience raising pigeons in England suggested that physical characteristics gradually change over time in response to both sexual and natural selection).

At nearly every point in The Origin of Species, Darwin employs the technique of _reductio ad absurdum_, which is to say that he ASSUMES HE'S WRONG and only claims to be right in the areas where all other tenable theories have been proven to be indefensible.

So it's kind of a meaningless question to ask if someone agrees or disagrees, especially since I would guess that most of the answerers haven't read the book.

I have.  And Darwin was indeed wrong about the formation of continents and the complete discarding of Lamarck's notion that species evolve more quickly in response to environmental stress.  The bulk of his theory has been supported by studies of rapidly-speciating fish in isolated populations under stress, but questions remain that must submit to rigorous scientific inquiry, and it is admittedly difficult to prove a theory that presumes to deal with time scales on the order of millions of years.

I don't "believe" in the law of gravity, but it's more demonstrably true than any elaborate hypothesis I might concoct about invisible, untestable forces holding me down to the earth.  I take a similar position on Darwin.  More demonstrably true than competing theories, but then again, the model of creation that most religionists hold to be true is not a "competing theory".  You cannot test the validity of a religion using science, and you cannot test the validity of a scientific theory using religion.  It's like asking "how much does the color blue weigh?"

Answer 9

It is kind of silly to call it Darwin's theory. The mountain of evidence proving it to be a fact is far beyond what was available to Darwin.  He was ignorant of genetics that proves in a very mathematical non biased and irrefutable way that all life shares common ancestors.  The number of fossils are undeniable PROOF that life has changed and new species have come into existence.  That is the most basic definition of evolution.  You would have to come up with some sort of 3rd grade argument that the "devil" put the evidence there to test your faith to deny it.  There is an industry of misinformation about there being questions or doubt about evolution .  It is about as much of a fact as it is that the Earth is in orbit around the sun.

Answer 10

DNA studies have proven his observations and conclusions absolutely correct.  The term "theory" no longer applies.

Answer 11

There is obviously truth to some if it, but its still called a theory 160 years later, so...

Answer 12

I think it is bunk science and has so many holes it looks like swiss cheese.

Brant the missing links found so far have been frauds

Answer 13

it is hard to mix science with religion. i am religious, but you cannot dispute science. i look at this way- god made the earth in seven days. to us a day is 24hrs. we do not know what his time span was. a day could have been billions of years. that is how i try to mix the two. so i can keep my religious beliefs, but except the scientific answer.

Answer 14

yes

Answer 15

The theory of evolution has lasted for 150 years. No evidence has been presented that disproves the fundamental validity of the theory. It's been repeatedly supported by the fossil record.

Darwin was not the first to suggest evolution as a means of change. He was the first to generate widespread debate and discussion. Most of his points have been repeatedly supported by fossil discoveries.

Remember that the term "theory" differs from the common usage. To quote from the National Academy of Sciences guidebook:

"The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Consider this example. It's been raining for a week. You just looked outside and it was still raining. The door opens and a person comes in. They are wearing rain gear and are soaking wet. They remark on how heavy the rain is. You develop the theory that they must have been outside in the rain. Does it explain the facts and observations? Can you test it?

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

A word of caution. There are a number of links to creationism to be found on the Internet. This idea has been promoted outside of scientific circles as an alternative explanation to evolution. It has no strong support in the scientific community and is comprise of several competing ideas. Most of the 'research" done in creationism consists at finding supposed problems with evolution

Answer 16

darwin himself , although he really wasn't all that hyped about anthropology, followed in his father's footsteps.  when he introduced the theory to the academic world, the issue became a great debate. i read that the men at harvard and other colleges said they really didn't care about finding proof, they would acclaim the theory because it was a great subject to debate.  darwin disclaimed the theory on his death bed.

i don't believe that men evolved from fish. but i do believe that there was some evolution among a humanoid species.

if you think about it a minute....just what kind of people lived in Nod? which is where God sent Cain when he  banished him.

Answer 17

I agree with Darwin's theories of natural selection and evolution.  Since they were proposed not a single piece of evidence has yet to disprove his theory.  In fact, nothing's even come close.  That's not to say they're perfect.  The point of a theory is not to be perfect.  They are, however, the best and most scientifically-grounded ideas we have about the way species evolve and change.

Brian, cite your sources if you want me to take your claims seriously.  Even if the missing links weren't accurate (which I've never seen any proof that they weren't) that doesn't by any means mean evolution is any less valid of a theory.  It doesn't disprove it, it just doesn't support it.  There's a big difference.

Answer 18

Darwin's theory of evolution has been unanimously accepted by scientists for over 100 years.

It is one of the most rigorously-tested theories in all of science, and it is the backbone of modern biology. To deny evolution would be to deny science altogether.

There are no 'holes' in the theory of evolution, ask any scientist. The only reason it is so despised is it happens to conflict with an old religious text.

edit: Icabod hit the nail on the head. Best answer, right there.