The Most Common Misunderstandings About Evolution

RealClearScience ^ | February 20, 2016 | Paula Kover

[ifinnegan]

Yes. Just So stories become science.

[Gamecock]

Well, like I said, a little bump where the nose use to be.

What else can cause that?

BTW, this is a Seinfeld gag

[HossB86]

Fact?

You are mistaking fact with theory.

I think you might be mistaking sarcasm for, well, you know.

Hoss

[Sergio]

Bkmk

[ifinnegan]

Thanks.

I thought you were serious.

[SampleMan]

Change can be explained in number of ways, but those explanations are nothing but guesses. As I said before, there is absolutely no logical reason to presume that the giraffe survived better with a longer neck.

All we know for certain is that it is outnumbered by shorter necked ruminants and that it has managed to survive with a long neck. So why from that would anyone conclude that having a long neck gave it competitive advantage?

If you hand me fishing pole, I’ll fish with it. If you hand me a spear, I’ll hunt with it. If the giraffe had a mutation that resulted in an ever growing neck, then it ate leaves as a mechanism to cope, yet scientists continually presume that the giraffe needed to start eating leaves in order to survive.

[dmz]

After all these many decades of intensive study, the “theory of evolution” remains just a theory (yet it is taught in many places as scientific fact).

<><><><

I see that you skipped science class in middle school.

You may want to do a teensy bit of reading of what constitutes a theory when in scientific circles.

[Teotwawki]

Starting with a single cell origin of life and evolving to today’s diversity, the gap that hangs me up is between asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. It was one heck of a random mutation to come up with two codependent complete and functioning systems, male and female, or if it was a series of mutations one has to assume that each partial step in that direction was, at that partial stage, an advantage to survival. Even then it is wildly beyond imagination that random mutations, occurring in two different systems, male and female, would continue to build to a complete system that complemented the other.

[I want the USA back]

The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It is about the origin of species.

No branch of science has so far been able to explain what life is, or how it began.

How St Thomas of Aquinas defined life: do a Google search for “life immanent action Owen Aloysius Hill”

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Even mainstream scientists have a hard time defending evolution these days. The evidence just isn’t there.

I tend to believe that book of “fables” anyways regarding creation called The Bible.

[Boogieman]

"a highly respected marine biologist"

[impactplayer]

What stopped “Evolution” once Man evolved???

There are now 3 million distinct species of life.

These would have increased in a geometrical ratio over 60,000,000 years.

Thus we would expect a new distinct species every 3 years.

Where are they? Why did they stop?

[piytar]

Not fair confusing the issue with math. Math is racist, sexist, or something!

/snark

[RoadGumby]

Exactly, the idea that you breed something from something that it is not.

[jonno]

I wonder what paleontologist - steeped in evolutionary theory - would decide about a find that included the following individuals?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/howaboutthat/6988398/The-worlds-tallest-man-Sultan-Kosen-and-the-shortest-man-in-the-world-He-Pingping-meet.html

[chesley]

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Another factor is that evolution requires death. This seems needlessly cruel to me, if sin hadn't happened.

[Boogieman]

“Even then, Darwin never argued that evolution led to new species.”

Actually, that was his central hypothesis.

[TangibleDisgust]

sin requires a soul.

which raises another point, do single cell bacterium have souls? if not, how did a “soul” evolve? if there is no such thing as a soul, then why do we (humans) do things for the benefit of strangers that are not in our self-interest, or contemplate our existence. do any other species perform such actions?

[Slings and Arrows]

macro-evolution, on the other hand, is not testable by the scientific method. we cannot devise a test to show that a bacterium can evolve into a blue whale.

We could; it would just take an Earth-like planet and a few billion years.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

’m Catholic and even if it were true, it doesn’t have any impact on my faith. the Bible contains many allegorical stories. Genesis doesn’t have to be a literal description of how we came to be. God could well have provided the divine spark for the very first life form to come into existence and simply waited for us to become what we are, until he chose to reveal to us his presence.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I used to believe this way also, and then I decided I would really study the book of Genesis and Revelation. I did a very through in depth study and I would suggest all believers do this. What I discovered was that scripture was written very plainly to man, for instruction, reproof etc. If one reads Genesis in context it is a historical book, not allegory. If I cannot believe what God has revealed in Genesis, the very first promise of the coming Messiah, how can I believe anything this book says. Almost all heresies center around twisting the books of Genesis and Revelation. I hope you will study yourself and come to a decision based upon the very Word of God. Blessings to you.