How did animals come to be?

Answer 1

Answers from various perspectivesArguments for Creation Theory

• Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists believe animals were created as kinds, and that variations within those kinds have occurred over time by adaptation and by manipulation, such as the genetic selection of traits by breeders of pets and livestock. Evolutionary scientists usually believe complex animals evolved from simpler life forms. They do not generally explain how the simple life forms, which are also animals, came to be, although some believe that non-living protogenic amino acids may have combined and generated life forms.

• Creation Theory is that all life comes from created kinds. There is no argument against speciation. All changes in life forms are micro-evolution, and do not add complexity or genetic material. The fossil record shows fully formed abrupt appearance and stasis (no change) in each layer. Even evolutionists admit this fact.James Crow, a modern leader for evolution theory admits, "...the details (of how evolution could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." (The Twilight of Evolution, p.48) Almost all the touted proofs for evolution show only micro-evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistent bacteria), which is not disputed by Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. These changes have no increase in complexity, but merely emphasize certain pre-existing traits over others. Evolution Theory totally and directly contradicts the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics--the universal law of increasing entropy. Things tend toward disorder over time, unless there is outside influence. A common misconception is that 'change equals evolution.' Animals change or adapt to their environment because they already have the inbuilt genetic ability to do so. No new genetic information is added or written into the genetic code. It has also never been demonstrated that chance random processes can generate anything remotely like life. Biochemistry clearly demonstrates that even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and is easily destroyed. Water is particularly destructive. If even the simplest cell cannot arise spontaneously, neither can anything else, including the animals.

• Animals came to be God creating them. Every building has to have a builder. If you start there that at least states there has to be a higher power! Everything in The Bible is true and not one thing has ever been proven wrong.

• In Genesis 1: 20 God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." In Genesis 1: 24 he said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." We know that the Bible is the true, inspired Word of God. So how much more proof do you need? Maybe in the beginning of the world, animals and humans lived longer, so you won't find many fossils of them. The world was pure before the Fall of Man, and we don't know how long the time between the Creation and the Fall of Man. It could have been centuries, or years, or days, or seconds. But maybe that is why you don't find many fossils of animals in the first layers of earth. And God didn't see fit to tell us how everything fit together. He just told us what we need to know, and we need to accept that. So, animals were made on the fifth and sixth days of creation.

Arguments against Creationist Theory

• The fossil record shows the gradual emergence of different, and generally more complex species over time. For example, the oldest layers only contain bacteria. Newer layers contain mollusks, invertebrates, etc. The newest layers contain vertebrates.

• Creationist Theory does not explain geographic distribution. The most closely related species are generally also found in the closest proximity to each other.

• Creationist Theory does not explain vestigial structures. Vestigial structures are the leftovers of evolution that are no longer functional. For example, wings on Flightless Birds, remnant hindlimb/pelvic bones in whales, tailbone on humans. If we were created, why the extra spare parts?

• Creationist Theory does not explain why species' designs contain flaws. With evolution, flaws can be passed down from ancestors. Evolution only selects for the best available, but does not guarantee that the best is without flaws. Sometimes it requires a trade off. For example, primates (including humans) have a non-functional gene for synthesizing vitamin c because presumably ancestral primates had so much vitamin c in their diets from fruit that the gene was not necessary. The gene is still there, but unlike in other animals, it doesn't work, so now that our diets don't always contain enough vitamin c, we can get scurvy. Another flaw in our design is that our windpipe stems from the throat so it can be easy to die from choking. If we were simply created, then why would there be these flaws in our physical design?

• Where is the mixing of features? If animals were just created, wouldn't there be a more random mixing of features? Instead, you have groupings of species sharing many similar traits as if they were related to one another or evolved from common ancestors. For example, mammals are grouped because they all produce milk. But all mammals also are warm blooded and have hair or fur (even whales have vestigial hair in the fetal stages). Where are the feathered mammals? Where are the birds that bear live young? You can find the features of older groups appearing on groups that evolved from these groups, but you don't see traits from more recent groups on species from older groups. Sure, there are a few anomalies out there, but do a little research and evolution explains why.

• Creation is just one possible explanation for the origin of life on earth. There is no single way to demonstrate how life began. Any who claim creation are not necessarily correct. It's a war of words. Of philosophies and ideologies. And it is likely to remain so for some time. Until then, just about any argument concerning the origin of life on earth is as "valid" as the next. The Bible thumper is no more or less correct than the one who thumps a science text. Believe what you want to. But your beliefs do not invalidate those of others.

Arguments for Evolution Theory

• All the proof one needs to see the changes evolution has effected are at hand. The earth has changed dramatically over the billions of years since it was formed. When life began (by what mechanism one is free to speculate on), it began a long, long time ago. As the planet changed, the life changed, evolved, to adapt to the new conditions. Or it died. It's that simple. The ideation of the tree of life (by Linnaeus) was a brilliant stroke. Modern evolutionary synthesis (MES), the state of the art construct that deals with evolution, is fact. (We just disagree amongst ourselves about abiogenesis - the mechanism of life's inception.) Many Christians are on board with MES and modern science's take on the age of the earth. Literal interpretation of the Bible leads to severe ideological conflicts. But some believe in a young earth. This seems to be adherence to obviously flawed ideology. Particularly in the face of the mountain of facts that any individual could understand. To evolutionists, young earth Christians seem to practice a form of denial on an epic scale. Intelligent Design Science is pseudo-science. It is an ideology that appears to have been designed for a single purpose: to get creation taught in public schools. The basic laws of existence state that nothing comes from nothing. However that would not preclude the possibility that life can come from nonliving things. Protenogenic amino acids are not alive, and neither are the proteins they create. However, a simple combination of proteins with the necessary levels of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to form strong bonds could very well result in single celled organisms, which, through symbiosis could bond with others and create multi-celled organisms. These things can occur spontaneously. Science has not demonstrated they did occur that way, but it would be foolish to deny that it is possible. There is no way to prove that life here on earth did not come from somewhere else. It could have, and there is more than one explanation as to how it could have occurred.

• Some molecules, acids, a pool of lava and luck.

Arguments for a Combination of Creation and Evolution

• If something needed to put the 'objects in question' into motion in order for them to even have a chance to bond into life, why can that not be the case to evolutionists? There is still room for evolution after the cause of motion. Also, why can the world and all life within it not have been intelligently designed but designed to evolve?

Arguments via straight up Factual Science:Below are scientific facts that clarify the most common misconceptions about 'How animals came to be':

Claim: All changes in life forms are micro-evolution, and do not add complexity or genetic material.

The Science- This is simply not true. New genetic material passed through the filter of natural selection easily gives rise to complexity. Such complexity can be seen in the case of a nylon-eating bacteria. New genetic material can come about by various mechanisms. The two most dominant ones in vertebrate evolution are genetic recombination and genetic mutations. These are widely studied phenomena and have an extremely well documented scientific basis.

ClaimThe fossil record shows fully formed abrupt appearance and stasis (no change) in each layer.

The Science- I can only imagine that the author is referring to the Cambrian explosion, which is a well documented event in geology. Furthermore, there have been found countless precambrian fossiles, and first solid evidence of life dates back to roughly 3.5 Bya.

Claim-Even evolutionists admit this fact.James Crow, a modern leader for evolution theory admits, "...the details (of how evolution could have taken place) are difficult and obscure." (The Twilight of Evolution, p.48)

The Science- This is a case of quote mining and, even if quoted correctly, isn't evidence for anything. What one scientist, or any person, says about his own personal incredulity says nothing of the viability of a theory.

Claim-Almost all the touted proofs for evolution show only micro-evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistent bacteria), which is not disputed by Creationists or Intelligent Design proponents. These changes have no increase in complexity, but merely emphasize certain pre-existing traits over others.

The Science- I cannot emphasise the error of this statement. I return to the case of the nylon-eating bacteria, where nylon is a polymer first synthesised in the lab in 1935 by Wallace Carothers. "Macro-evolution" (mind you, biologists and geneticists alike do not differentiate between the two) is merely the result of accumulated "micro-evolution". Whereas 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1+1... would eventually equal 100, enough for one to call it macro-evolution by the "micro-macro" standard.

Claim-Evolution Theory totally and directly contradicts the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics--the universal law of increasing entropy.

The Science The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how entropy tends to increase in a closed system. The way this law interacts with biology is that organisms must fight the tendency for disorder lest their cells will collapse. This is the purpose of homeostasis, a process which every organism shares. It has absolutely nothing to do with the increasing complexity of the global gene pool. Apples and Oranges!

Claim-Animals change or adapt to their environment because they already have the inbuilt genetic ability to do so. No new genetic information is added or written into the genetic code.

The Science - This is a statement which simply contradicts modern research. I have already written a great deal about mutations and its mechanisms, so I won't comment further.

Claim-It has also never been demonstrated that chance random processes can generate anything remotely like life. Biochemistry clearly demonstrates that even the simplest cell is incredibly complex and is easily destroyed. Water is particularly destructive. If even the simplest cell cannot arise spontaneously, neither can anything else, including the animals.

The Science- It has been demonstrated that amino acids can be synthesised using only a mild electric current from where there were once only simple gases such as, among others, H2O (water vapour), CO (carbonmonoxide) and CH4 (methane). Furthermore, this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. This is an entirely different field of study altogether called Abiogenesis and is in the field of Organic Chemistry rather than Evolutionary Biology. More importantly, Evolutionary theory is not dependent on Abiogenesis, and Abiogenesis is not dependent on Evolutionary theory for either to be true. This statement supposes that this is the case.

Answer 2

we bred them from wolfs so we created them but if you mean dog species like wolfs well that's hard if you believe in God then gOD BUT IF YOU DON'T WELL YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO RECHEARCH IT AND SEE IF THEY CAN BE SOME SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION BUT NOT REALLY AS HOW DID HUMANS BECOME? oh sorry i was writing in caps lock!

Answer 3

Japanese animation has it's roots in such early animators as Oten Shimokawa , Jun'ichi Kouchi and Seitarō Kitayama as an alternative to live action films from Japanese studios .

Anime , as we in the West know the term , became popular with the import of Osamu Tezuka's 'Tetsuwan Atomu' or 'Astro Boy' .

From these origins the Occident has come to be acquainted with the artform known as anime and it's published equivalent Manga .

Answer 4

Evolutionists hold that animals developed through random mutations, while Creationists believe that God created animals (and humans and everything else).

Here are some arguments for Creation or against Evolution.

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  
• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 5

There are various religious explanations for this, but the evidence of the fossil record and of animal DNA is that animals evolved from more primitive organisms.