Question:
What's the hardest part to believe about evolution for you?
the shiz
2008-02-18 23:28:47 UTC
the part that stunts me is sea creatures moving from water to land. what's the chances that at least 2 could survive on land, and that they mated?

also the lack of full skeletons. I mean, if evolution happens very slowly, then you think there would be more bones left behind.

what say you ?
29 answers:
2008-02-18 23:33:50 UTC
Ever heard of a penguine, frog or a seal? They spend part of their time on land, and part of their life in the water.



What i don't believe about science is the idea that whales are mammals. I mean, how can something that lives its entire life in the ocean need to breathe oxygen from above the water? It's absurd, they're just really big fish.



The lack of fossils is a good point. But the fossils that do exist gives me reason to suspect evolution's true.
Nomad
2008-02-18 23:32:39 UTC
the first land animals had both gills and lungs. there are plenty of full skeletons.



"The part that is most incomprehensible to me is how a non-living thing became a living thing."



This isnt evolution, it is a separate theory, known as abiogenesis. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment.



"guess what no one else understands evolution completely thats why its still a theory"



There is nothing, not even a scientific law, that is higher than a theory. A theory is an explanation of facts. Gravity, atoms, an electromagnetism are all theories.



"it also backs up certain theories of the flood when everything flooded it says that it not "



The flood is not a theory, a theory is an explanation of facts, there are no facts that back up the flood.



"at least half of all ocean life died too from the change in salinity probably the reason most fossils that are found happen to be aquatic."



Assuming the flood did happen, only a fraction of one percent of fish would have survived.
Heron By The Sea
2008-02-18 23:33:54 UTC
I believe that evolution probably is a fact, however I don't understand everything about it at all. The part that is most incomprehensible to me is how a non-living thing became a living thing. I don't have such a problem with seeing how dinosaurs could evolve into birds, and birds into something else. I have a bigger problem understanding how it all began in the first place. How did a single-celled organism become an organism? How did it become "living" as opposed to inanimate matter?
Demopublican
2008-02-18 23:38:03 UTC
The hardest part for me to believe is that with all the evolving we have done as a species, there are still so many within our species who haven't yet fully evolved.And yet, somehow, it is true.





I often wonder, if Adam and Eve were the first people to walk the Earth, why haven't we found any of their remains?You would think they would have been given a grand burial that would be forever marked and celebrated as the resting place of the first mother and first father of civilization.
Sleepyriggles
2008-02-18 23:34:34 UTC
For me the hardest part is the fact that even this age of information people still don't believe that evolution happens...
Just Another Game
2008-02-18 23:39:44 UTC
i don't understand it nor do i try to, guess what no one else understands evolution completely thats why its still a theory.. there is no definitive proof one way or another. my guess is as good as anyone elses. really the details of evolution don't concern my or my everyday life for some people it does like people who get horribly pissed about their team losing a game and it affects them all day. really when you think about it it doesn't matter. i'm still here today and i still have to choose whether i accept Christ or not.



on the skeleton thing there really isn't that many full skeletons of anything because in order for a skeleton to become a fossil it needs to have died and then been instantly covered up. we all know that people have been here for at least 6,000 years. now thats alot of skeletons unaccounted for. it also backs up certain theories of the flood when everything flooded it says that it not only rained for 40 days but that water rose up from the earth. and from biblical accts there were no oceans preflood so that accounts for deep sea trenches and the shifting of the continents. no one really disputes pangea. but if a massive raging toorent of water were to come over the earth it would destroy and disentegrate everything in its path that was organic. hence the reason that there aren't really many fossils oh and also at least half of all ocean life died too from the change in salinity probably the reason most fossils that are found happen to be aquatic. the water didn't disturb and and destroy as much life as it did on land
2008-02-18 23:36:18 UTC
I have no problems with evolution as it is currently understood,I know the theory is itself evolving to get it right.



The thing about Darwin's theory on natural selection that baffles me, as an atheist is the fact that Christian fundamentalists haven't degenerated into babbling monkeys yet....





Oh wait, I just read some of their posts here, I take it back.....
lilagrubb
2008-02-19 03:44:59 UTC
The part I find hardest to believe is that in this day and age, when evolution is supported by masses of evidence, there are still people who deny it.
becky
2008-02-18 23:36:38 UTC
I believe in evolution as there is plenty of evidence for many creatures showing how they changed and evolved through the ages, adapting to new environments , or a simple new oddity in one or a few, made more of them survive long enough to breed more of their kind. but.......

I don't see the same evidence with mankind. There is some evidence showing changes, but like you.... I don't think there is as much evidence as there should be.
Exodus
2008-02-18 23:33:49 UTC
The hardest thing for me to believe is how many people do not have even a basic understanding of evolution although the information is freely available



And even harder to believe is that those same people then want to argue about it!
David G
2008-02-18 23:37:00 UTC
Neither evolution nor the christian religion is hard to believe, I think that christian people have become too caught up in the idea of an instant creation like "poof there it is". Actual creation took billions of years to complete but is no less a magnificient feat, once you consider the incredible intricacy in which all forms of life exist.
kanoa k
2008-02-18 23:58:08 UTC
Whats the hardest part of science for you?

Statistics, Logarithms...

From your question its obvious you don't understand either of them.

If i were to show you differential equations, it would stunt you... Would you then doubt those Solutions?

What say you?
Imagine No Religion
2008-02-18 23:35:47 UTC
Evolution is not hard to understand.



Creationism on the other hand make no sense at all. "POOF" we appeared? HA HA!! what a bunch of hogwash ideas.



Creationism is nothing more than a fictional story used to explain where we have come from. Primitive man was clueless during the early period of human civilization; hence the silly story of "POOF" we appeared or god took clay and "POOF" we are here.



Those who do not understand evolution or accept evolution are close-minded individuals who truly are afraid of hearing and facing the truth about the orgins of mankind
Cosmodot
2008-02-18 23:38:53 UTC
All the dang parts I don't understand.





The Bible forgot to explain it.





It's a pretty big thing for God to miss don't you think?
.
2008-02-18 23:39:13 UTC
hardest part to believe about evolution for me, is, that, that even, not enough bones left for some, there is a vast amount of people, , who believe in god,who does not left ANY bones around for us to study.nor, he eventually WILL
2008-02-18 23:44:32 UTC
You should really get a good intro to biology book and read.



If you are asking it here, it seems like you might not really have read an actual biology book written by a practicing biologist.



There are tons of fossil records.
2008-02-18 23:31:44 UTC
For your first question, examine amphibians. Like all things in nature these things were transitions over a long period of time, not abrupt and discrete events.



For the second, fossilization occurs only in very specific circumstances. It is far from common.
Weird Darryl
2008-02-18 23:33:18 UTC
The fact that creationists choose to ignore clear evidence that points to evolution and choose, instead, to believe a pseudoscience.

.
Jasper
2008-02-18 23:33:07 UTC
The idea that a shrimp and a horse came from the same single cell organism is really outrageous. But, I cannot change anyone's mind.
tenshi of God
2008-02-18 23:35:03 UTC
The fact that the necessary information can come from nowhere and miraculously process it right so that it doesn't become a useless/fatal genetic defect.
2008-02-18 23:32:13 UTC
You've heard of amphibians, right?
2008-02-18 23:32:21 UTC
Adam and Eve came from ape-like ancestors? I don't think so.
2008-02-18 23:31:57 UTC
The hardest part of it is that it could possibly happen with out divine intervention.
Dreamstuff Entity
2008-02-18 23:39:03 UTC
You know, if you have questions about science, there are many people who can help - but this has nothing to do with religion.



Claim CC216.1:

There are gaps between land mammals and whales.

Source:

Gish, Duane T., 1994. When is a whale a whale? Impact 250 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=379

Response:



1. The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust. See Babinski (2003) or Zimmer (1998) for pictures of some of these.



1. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).

2. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).

3. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).

4. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.

5. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).

6. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998).



The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).



Links:

Babinski, E. T., 2003. Cetacean evolution (whales, dolphins, porpoises) http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html



Sutera, Raymond, 2001. The origin of whales and the power of independent evidence. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(5): 33-41. http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

References:



1. Boisserie, Jean-Renaud, Fabrice Lihoreau and Michel Brunet. 2005. The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 102(5): 1537-1541.

2. Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1983. Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: New evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan. Science 220: 403-406.

3. Gingerich, P. D., B. H. Smith, and E. L. Simons, 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of feet in whales. Science 249: 154-157.

4. Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1993. Partial skeletons of Indocetus ramani [Mammalia, Cetacea] from the Lower Middle Eocene Domanda Shale in the Sulaiman Range of Punjab [Pakistan]. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology of the University of Michigan 28: 393-416.

5. Gingerich, P. D. et al., 1994. New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming. Nature 368: 844-847.

6. Gingerich, P. D. et al. 2001. Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: Hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science 293: 2239-2242. See also: Rose, K. D. 2001. The ancestry of whales. Science 293: 2216-2217.

7. Thewissen, J. G. M. and S. T. Hussain, 1993. Origin of underwater hearing in whales. Nature 361: 444-445.

8. Thewissen, J. G. M., S. T. Hussain and M. Arif, 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-212. See also Berta, A., 1994. What is a whale? Science 263: 180-181.

9. Stricherz, Vince, 1998 (10 Oct.). Burke displays fossil of toothless whale. http://depts.washington.edu/uweek/archives/1998.10.OCT_29/_article2.html See also http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/baleen980916.html



Further Reading:

Gould, S. J. 1995. Hooking leviathan by its past. In: Dinosaur in a Haystack. New York: Harmony Books, pp. 359-376.



Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA. http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm , http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf .



Thewissen, J. G. M. (ed.). 1998. The Emergence of Whales: evolutionary patterns in the origin of Cetacea. New York: Plenum. (technical)



Thewissen, J. G. M., S. I. Madar, and S. T. Hussain. 1998. Whale ankles and evolutionary relationships. Nature 395: 452. See also Wong, K., 1999 (Jan.). Cetacean creation. Scientific American 280(1): 26,30.



Thewissen, J. G. M. and E. M. Williams. 2002. The early radiations of Cetacea (Mammalia): Evolutionary pattern and developmental correlations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 73-90. (technical)



Zimmer, Carl. 1995. Back to the sea. Discover 16(1) (Jan.): 82-84.



Zimmer, Carl. 1998. At the Water's Edge. New York: Touchstone, ch. 6-10.



---



Claim CC200.1:

Given all the species that exist and have existed, there should be billions of transitional fossils in the fossil record; we should have found tens of thousands at least.

Source:

Gish, Duane T., 1994. When is a whale a whale? Impact 250 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=379

Response:



1. Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:



* Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.



* Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.



* Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.



* The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.



Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?



2. Other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground.



3. As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer. For the most part, we find only fossils that have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves do not erode.



As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions.



Only Europe and North America have been well explored for fossils because that is where most of the paleontologists lived. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there.



4. The shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.



5. Description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized. This is especially true of marine microfossils, which have the best record.



6. If fossilization were so prevalent and young-earth creationism were true, we should find indications in the fossil record of animals migrating from the Ark to other continents.



Links:

Hunt, Kathleen. 1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ, part 1A. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

Further Reading:

Kidwell, S. M. and S. M. Holland. 2002. The quality of the fossil record: Implications for evolutionary analyses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 561-588. (technical)
Time to buy
2008-02-18 23:35:20 UTC
Right, there would be billions of examples of these metamorphic changes
IGotsFacts!
2008-02-18 23:36:17 UTC
I say you should crack open a book some weekend.
Archimedes
2008-02-18 23:32:04 UTC
I say that you should read a book on it before passing judgement.
2008-02-18 23:32:39 UTC
That we com frum munkies, isnte easier to belive that G-d craeted u from durt?
2008-02-18 23:30:47 UTC
bananas


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...