What are the odds that evolution is true?

Answer 1

ANSWERS * There are countless evidences for micro-evolution, that is, adaptations of species; scientists believe this also occurred as macro-evolution, the development of new species. There is also substantial evidence for natural selection, the survival of species that are best adapted to their environment. Evolution does not address the origin of life. Beyond that, it would certainly be difficult to show conclusively that evolution is the sole explanation for the development and survival or extinction of species. * Evolution is far and away the best explanation for all the facts regarding life on earth and the changes it has undergone. Evolution, the idea that life has been here on earth and has been changing over millions of years, is fact. Darwin's tree of life is real, and fact-proven. The facts of evolution are presented in modern evolutionary synthesis (MES). There is a mountain of facts that are stacked up behind MES. The evidence is overwhelming. Note that it is not a question of the facts supporting MES, but rather MES explains all the many facts we have gathered about life on earth, about its tenure here and the many changes it has gone through over the billions of years since it began. [And evolution doesn't say man evolved from monkeys. It only says we have a common ancestor. It is a good idea to check facts before arguing against a point of view.] It should be fairly noted that MES offers no proof whatsoever regarding abiogenesis (the creation of life). There is no physical evidence of any kind that speaks to the animation of mud by lighting. Only a number of theories are set out to offer what might have happened. In the mean time, anyone who is sitting in Biology and learning about evolution is learning scientific fact. Life has been on earth for billions of years, and it has been changing against the backdrop of a changing earth for all that time. If life did not change when the earth did, that life died. It's that simple. Evolution as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis is fact. And the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations worldwide are in agreement. This is what is currently taught in biology class, and correctly so.

* Scientists find apparent evidence of macro-evolution everywhere in the fossil record. One example of an apparently transitional species is the 380 million-year-old fossil of a primitive fish, Gogonasus. It had fins some scientists believe were strong enough to support its weight in shallow water and propel itself along. A scan of the fossil, using a three-dimensional X-ray microscope, revealed its skeleton had several features that were like those of a four-legged land animal, or tetrapod. They included a structure similar to one of the bones of a middle ear; and there were arm-like bones in its fins:the radius and ulna, as are also in the pectoral fins of whales. Here was a fish that seems to have evolved to a point where it had much in common with later land animals. * No, there are also evidences that indicate evolution is not true. There are many biological organisms and organs that appear to be irreducibly complex, such as the eye. Which part of the eye could have evolved first from accidental mutation? Why did it survive natural selection--what use was it without the rest of the eye? These evidences are not accepted as valid arguments by evolutionary scientists.

* Macro-evolution -- the development of entirely new species from existing ones, such as dinosaurs evolving into birds -- has no indisputable evidence. Can you observe it? No. Can you demonstrate it? No. The evidences offered tend to be of the noted similarities variety and without an intelligent intervention, evolution is the only explanation that seems to work. Adaptations merely show selection for traits already present in the gene pool. There is no evidence for addition of complex design information, such as would be required for amoeba to human evolution. The opponents of evolution would claim that the similarities could as easily be evidences of common design.

* Of course we can not observe macro-evolution taking place, simply because the timescales are too long. But we can demonstrate it. In the example suggested above by a skeptic, the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, scientists have found rock impressions of dinosaur bodies, showing the presence of feathers. Of course the dinosaur in question did not use feathers to fly, but to keep warm. And Archaeoptrix was a dinosaur, but it was also almost a bird.

* There's a reason they call it the Theory of Evolution - that means that even the people who believe in it 100% know it can't be proven. * Despite over 70 years of militant teaching that evolution is true, there have been no, count it, no definitive correlations between this theory and fact. Despite the wishful thinking of the evolutionists, there has been no proof that Darwin's Origin of the Species was correct. Short version...my ancestors were men...Darwin's might have been apes, but there's no proof. * Not only is there no evidence that evolution is true the switching of terms to make it sound true only hides the fact, it doesn't make it any more true. The reference here is to the proven fact that organisms change in response to their environment. This is called natural selection but it is not evolution as the organism does not evolve into anything else. It merely uses the genetic information in its gene pool to either adapt, or in some cases unfortunately, it becomes extinct. There is no evidence that species change into something else. Genetics demonstrates that there are definite limits to change. To equate natural selection with evolution is pseudo-science.

* Evolution is widely regarded as fact by virtually all earth and life scientists, some of whom are Christian. Evolution unifies and explains hundreds of thousands of facts in several areas of science extremely elegantly, it allows us to predict with startling accuracy where we will find fossils, how old they will be when we find them, what they will look like and why, and allows us to fight disease by using evolutionary principles to determine how diseases will evolve over time. Evolution is observed at every level, from natural selection to speciation (the formation of new species).

* Apart from their being no evidence that evolution is true there is also much evidence that directly contradicts various aspects of evolutionary dogma.

Answer 2

First of all, the explanation is fairly simple and obvious. Living things reproduce with variation. Reproduction is part of the definition of life, and variation is evident in a number of ways. You are not exactly the same as either of your parents. You probably have some genetic information that they don't have. There is actually too much genetic information in the human gene pool to fit into one or even several individual humans. Most changes don't have any real effect, because most genetic "information" has no function. This is called junk DNA. Many changes are malignant and even fatal, and on rare occasions they are positively useful. However, simply because the harmless changes are not lethal, they can be passed on. Since they are mostly unique, forensic scientists use these changes to identify people from DNA samples, and even determine paternity, etc.

This is where natural selection steps in, and random chance ends.

Natural selection is tendency for living things with genes beneficial for surviving and (more importantly) reproducing in its environment to occur more frequently. Members of a species that are better able to find food, mate, evade predators, and ensure the survival of other members of their species (because they have mostly the same genes) will generally do so. By this means, only genes which make their hosts more suitable to their environment are passed on. Therefore, nature imposes "selective pressure" on living things and, in a way, forces them to change on average.

Since the explanation works so well, what evidence do we have that this has occurred?

The fossil record is full of beautiful examples of extinct species, some of which gave rise to species that still exist today. There are examples of early reptiles, early mammals, early jawless fish, etc. all the way up the tree of life. Just recently, for example, Tiktaalik was discovered as a link between fish and amphibians. Sometimes the fossils are so ambiguous that taxonomists argue fervently over classifying them as, say, mammallian reptiles or reptillian mammals. Speciation is slow and smooth, and it does not occur in abrupt steps, as naming conventions might lead one to think. Often, naming a specimen as a particular species is somewhat arbitrary. Lions and tigers are separate species, but they can mate and produce ligers (yes they are real) which live but are unable to reproduce with tigers, lions, or even other ligers. Speciation simply occurs when two portions of a population remain separate long enough that they can no longer produce fertile offspring with each other. It is gradual, and often species can form a chain of genetically compatible individuals with incompatable members far enough along the chain from one another. Imagine a slow gradient from red to blue. Red can mate with reddish purple, which can mate with purple, which can mate with indigo, which can mate with blue, but blue and red are unable to reproduce. There is a species (or two) of newt in California that display this well, for instance.

Answer 3

Evidence either supports a theory or refutes it. Evidence cannot prove the theory is "true." Darwin's theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. For example, there are fossil stromatolites (bacterial mats) dating back billions of years. There are no fossils of multicellular organisms anywhere near that old.

The next oldest fossils we find are of marine biota, vendian and ediacaran benthic organisms, dating back more than 500 million years. We find terrestrial plants and insects from 400 million years ago, but no terrestrial vertebrates. Nor are most of the plants from this time like any that can be found today.

300 million years ago we find the earliest amphibious organisms, which closely resemble sarcopterygian lungfish of the same era. Club mosses, ferns, and primitive vascular plants dot the landscape. There are no grasses or flowering plants found anywhere on earth at this time.

Eventually we find gradual transitions of dinosaur species and reptilian looking birds. At the end of the cretaceous the dinosaurs disappear, and gradually we find wider ranges of mammals. All of this fossil evidence speaks loudly of a gradual process of biological evolution (change) over vast stretches of time.

In that respect, we might say Darwin's theory of evolution appears to be accurate. It certainly beats any other scientific theory of biological origins ever considered by man.

but there is a contradiction with religion

Answer 4

Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is fact. Facts, hypothesis, theories, and laws are not accounted "true" in science, but are considered tentative approximations approaching truth with some certainty. But, colloquially, the odds that evolution, including the theory of evolution by natural selection, are very, very high (considering what I think you mean by true).

Answer 5

Very high. There is a lot of evidence supporting it. They are found in anatomy, genetics, and the fossil record. Most of the scientific community accepts it as a fact. Contrary to popular misconception, evolution is not "just a theory" it is a coherent body of facts. There is no longer much dispute about whether evolution might be true (at least within the scientific community). Evolution is the cornerstone of the life sciences.

Answer 6

That's not something for which you can do exact calculations. Let's just say that all the evidence seems to indicate that evolution did, and does, indeed, happen. As to the probability that life actually originated on Earth itself (as opposed to having arrived as spores from some other planet, where it might have originated first); well, for the time being, any probability you assign to that is just guesswork, not solid science.

Answer 7

Evolution is the best explanation for the facts that we have. Beyond that, it would certainly be difficult to prove conclusively that evolution is the sole explanation for the development and survival or extinction of species.

• Indisputable evidence of macro-evolution is everywhere in the fossil record. One example of a clearly transitional species is the 380 million-year-old fossil of a primitive fish, Gogonasus.It had fins strong enough to support its weight in shallow water and propel itself along. A scan of the fossil, using a three-dimensional X-ray microscope, revealed its skeleton had several features that were more like those of a four-legged land animal, or tetrapod, than a fish. They included the structure of its middle ear and the existence of precursors of the forearm bones in its fins: the radius and ulna. Here was a fish that had already evolved to a point where it had much in common with later land animals
• Of course we can not observe macro-evolution taking place, simply because the timescales are too long. But we can demonstrate it. In the example suggested above by a sceptic, the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, scientists have found rock impressions of dinosaur bodies, showing the presence of feathers. Of course the dinosaur in question did not use feathers to fly, but to keep warm. And Archaeoptrix was a dinosaur, but it was also almost a bird.

For more information on the acceptance of the evidence of evolution, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation