If evolution is true then everyone’s very FIRST ancestor was a micro-organism?
Yes – just think – every living thing on earth is related to each other….
There are a couple of theories behind this, but something like infinite regression basically says ":it’s so far back we don’t know and won’t know.": Ideally, we don’t know what began evolution. But this should be examined more closely between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is still very highly contested, and many question its validity in the field of biology. Micro evolution is all about adaptaion to survive. Necessity is the mother of invention…though it would seem that a lot that is discussed in micro evolution is pure chance, not necessity. Either way, survival would be a strong motivator for adapability. It’s a little bit of twisted logic, resources are limited so somehow a mutation occurs which gives one creature a greater edge over others (micro evolution)…eventually these mutations will become so great that there’s a whole new species (macro evolution). But there seems to need a driving force, since matter finds its lowest stable level of energy, why would it strive to compete? What’s the drive? Of course Science Fiction does point out that radiation can mutate lizards into horribly large fire breathing beasts.
Why Evolution Cannot Be True
It may be true or completely false. But if evolution is true, it does NOT mean creation is not true at all. But i don’t believe that we humans, got brains to think, heart to live, eyes to see, ears to listen just like that.
I am a biology major and I am actually in an evolution class right now. I have yet to be told that we originated from a singe microorganism. Look up the definition of evolution….. It’s basically saying that traits are inherited from one generation to the next. Everything, it seems like to me goes through evolution. Think about the first computers to today’s computer, old tube tvs to the modern hi definition flat panels, foods, technology, housing…. everything has been improved from what it once was. So yes evolution is true, but one has to interpret the definition correctly.
Evolution is very well supported theory. But, like all theories, you can’t call it true because it might be proved wrong some day.
1. Evolution is a fact. I say that because it has been observed, and not just in the fossil record. For those who insist on seeing it in real time, that’s been witnessed also. Many, many times. People who insist that ":macro":-evolution never happens are essentially saying that small changes can happen within a population, but small changes can never add up to big changes. To anybody who argues that small changes cannot (or do not) add up to big changes, I invite you to witness an individual raindrop – a miniscule change in the volume of water on the ground. Now I ask you to consider how many, many such small changes, if applied persistently for long enough, will indeed lead to a very big and destructive change.
Analogies aside, there is so much direct evidence in support of evolution that no scientist working in a relevant field doubts the reality of evolution. And no, Ben Stein, that’s not because of some massive conspiracy to suppress dissent. It’s because everytime a biologist performs an experiment, it seems to point to the same inescapable conclusion.
That’s the definition of a fact in science: an idea which has so much evidential support that it’s no longer reasonable to question it.
2. There is a THEORY that attempts to explain HOW evolution occurs. Please note, evo-scoffers…even if the theory of evolution is miraculously falsified tomorrow, that does NOT mean that evolution isn’t happening. It just means we have to go back to the drawing board to figure out how.
3. The theory of evolution does suggest a common ancestor for all living things, and it’s likely that the most recent common ancestor of all living things was in fact a micro-organism. Regardless of our opinions, we must consider that idea based on its merits. Don’t discredit it simply because you dislike the idea of having descended from a prokaryote.
I hope that helps. Good luck!
Depends on what you mean by evolution. The word evolution is one word that is used to describe many different processes, observations, and conjecture. The observable meanings of evolution are micro evolution. This should just be called variation. There is over 200 varieties of dogs. This is observable. Some people even use population shifting and call that evolution, or evidence of it. The peppered moth is a good example of this. There were few dark moths and lots of light ones. The trees turned dark because of pollution and the birds ate the light ones and so there was lots of dark ones. Then the pollution was cleaned up and the light ones gained the majority again. I would say that this is not evolution, only population shifting. If you want to call it evolution you can. These examples are the observable, testable, and repeatable forms of evolution. Many times you will be shown a hundred examples of these forms of evolution. Then through a technique known as ":bait and switch,": you will be expected to swallow that evolution is proved all the way to the extreme extent of the intended meanings . These extents include: abiogenesis. This is the idea that lighning and atmosphere created amino acids. Then those amino acids were separated right hand from left hand by some unknown process. Then the amino acids somehow formed a self reproducing molecule and that molecule became alive. There is no evidence for this an all evidence strongly indicates that natural causes cannot preform these feat. That is why it is only supposed to have happend once, 3.5 billion or 3,500 million years ago. (fairy tale time)
The next meaning of evolution that you will be expected to believe in after being shown some minor variation is macro evolution. This is the process of basic kinds of animals evolving into one another. There is no evidence for this except many documented frauds, conjecture, and gross over simplification. Was the coelacanth the lobed finned fish that made the voyage onto land. That was the thought untill they started finding them still alive. My question is if they supposedly have been around for hundreds of millions of years, how come they are still in the same form as there fossils? If they have been around for hundreds of millions of years, where they making fossils the entire time? Did we discover fossil coelacanth that where a couple hundred years old? A coulple thousand? Or was the coelacanth an index fossil in which whenever we found one, the evolutionay presupposition dated the fossil to many millions of years old? You see, they imagine evolutionary lines of progression and then through conjecture, line up the fossils in some subjective way according to body size and shape.
They don’t know if that fossil had any offspring. They don’t know if it had different offspring. Why would they assume the fossils could produce drasticly different offspring when every basic kind of animal has not since the beginning of recorded history over 5,000 years ago?
The reason is because these men have a come to the table with a preestablished law conserning the religious faith of Naturalism. This Naturalism establishes from the start that only random natural causes can account for the universe and everything in it, including life.
Another myth that is proposed is that small changes can add up over time to make large changes and that the changes are limitless. This is also conjecture. If I can flip a coin and obtain 5 heads in a row, can I flip 500 heads in a row? The answer is no. The odds of this would require more time than the earth has been in existance. Now with the super comlexities, interrelatedness, and irreducable complexity of life. How can observing some variation in the expression of availible genes lead us to conclude that these changes are limitless. It goes back to the faith of Naturalism and secondly Humanism. Charles Darwin was one of the original modern day perpetrators of this crime. He observed 14 varieties of finches and concluded that all the plants and animals that ever lived where related. Well, are you related to a banana. Can random, blind chance natural processes change a banana into a humam? The answer is no. There is no human information in a banana and no amount of scrambing can form it. This is shown by the FACT that there is not any naturally occuring information that was not preplanned and designed by an intellegen creator. There has supposedly been billions and billions of years for variation and natural selection to work on every other molecule in the universe but we do not find even 5 bits of information anywhere.
The plan scientific truth is that this earth and all that is in it was created fully formed by a creator.
There are some religious aspects to all of this, but considering the scientists use the religion of Naturalism, I will not shy away from using the religion of Jesus Christ on here.
We know that all life was created by a creator. We also know that there is evil in this world.
Evolution is a theory. That does not make it absolute truth. To put that into layman’s terms, it’s an idea (also called a hypothesis) that seems to be supported by observable facts. This does not necessarily make it true.
Remember, through the ages, there have been lots of scientific theories that have later been proven to be false. Up until they were proven to be false, there were observable facts that supported those theories.
Note, I’m not saying evolution is not true, scientifically speaking. Personal beliefs aside, there is not sufficient evidence to confirm or deny evolution as absolute truth.
if we all evolved from one microorganism, then that microorganism would have to come from somewhere. The law of spontaneous generation states that living matter cannot come from nonliving matter, which proves macro evolution wrong
No one knows if it’s true or not. Just think about it from both aspects, true and not >:<:
They all think they are scientists and things like that.