What convinced you (specifically) that evolution is true or false?
Cognito: I asked for SPECIFICS, not generalizations. Please answer the question.
- Spah-kyLv 611 months agoFavourite answer
The fact that it has never been observed convinced me it is false. Oh, I know, you need to imaaaagine millions o’ years passing, because these changes are so slow. Ok then... Let’s look at bacteria, they have a short life cycle: 60,000(+) generations of bacteria yield...
Wow. That was anticlimactic.
- Ronald 7Lv 711 months ago
The fact that Nature always finds a way
How did life come to Earth in the first place ?
Answer, Space is full of TardigradesSource(s): A Tardigrade, Yesterday, refused to Comment
- CowboyLv 611 months ago
The readily and directly observed evolution of populations confirms that evolution happens. like it or not....
- 11 months ago
Evolution does not fill in all the gaps. I believe it is false because people have to keep adding to it to try to make it true. If it was true, it would be more obvious if the earth went through such changes that they say.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- PubliusLv 711 months ago
I have not reached a conclusion on evolution. Theistic evolution could well have been one of God's tools. We just don't know. But ATHEISTIC evolution doesn't have much going for it. It ignores entropy and thermodynamics. Every single imperfect system that is not maintained degrades and fails with time. Life is no exception, so ignore all special pleading for it. Life simply could not have persisted for billions of years, much less grown in order and complexity, without somebody maintaining and improving it.
The trend of atheistic evolution is always to weakness, disease, and death. Only one mutation in 100 is even weakly beneficial, and fully half are fatal. Atheistic evolution can't explain why life persisted for billions of years.
- 11 months ago
You are using loose language, but I will respect that you tried to ask a brief question. I believe that the processes associated with evolution are real, i.e. with respect to your question, evolution is in general true regarding its description of how we got here. With the understanding that the word "evolution" actually includes many different things, here is what convinces me.
When you examine the many predictions associated with evolution, you see the prediction that very small genetic changes are the only real difference between related species. Then take DNA from those available species and do genetic mapping on the samples. Group the samples that have similar DNA and determine the difference between the two groups. Eliminate things like hair color, eye color, nuances of skin tone, and other minor things that are superficial.
When you rearrange the groups to keep minimum differences closest to each other, they naturally form a pattern that we call "The Tree of LIfe" that shows branches where related species started to diverge from one another. The Tree of Life happens to match up well with fossil records. That is, the physical reality of the fossils we can find matches closely to the pattern we would predict from this "Tree of Life" process I described.
If you can make a reasonably detailed prediction based on a theory and that prediction appears to match reality, then you have some confidence that the theory is more likely to be true than false.
- DiogenesLv 711 months ago
When I was a high school freshman during the Fall of 1960, I was enrolled in what was then called BSCS Biology. This was where I was first introduced to the notion of evolution. It was also my introduction to DNA and the role it plays in both reproduction and evolution. I had never believed it was possible for God to magically "speak" entire species into existence and the role of DNA in biology (first discovered in 1953) made much better sense to me than the Book of Genesis ever did. In class we bred selected pairs of fruit flies and kept track of the genetic traits exhibited by both parents and offspring. After I understood that DNA is the chemical agent of genetic inheritance and began to think of time in terms of scientific notation, I had a scientific worldview and never again reverted to superstitious Christian nonsense.
- Don VertoLv 711 months ago
If you mean by evolution change within a species over time then you are right.
If you mean by evolution coming into existence out of nothing with the agency of nobody then common sense will show you wrong.
- Bill MacLv 711 months ago
No transitional forms exist to provide evidence and the non-belief of many in the scientific community.
- five toed slothLv 711 months ago
The first time I had evolution described to me (aged about 13 in Biology class) it was such a beautifully simple explanation of how all the species of life on Earth came to be, that one seemed to know it to be intuitively correct!
As I got older, with a more sophisticated grasp of science, it was clearly objectively, empirically fact.
- PyriformLv 711 months ago
There was no one specific piece of evidence. There were many pieces altogether.
I can give you one example, if you like. The remains of telomeres are left in the middle of one of our genes, where two others joined together.