Of course there is evidence of major change. Why would scientists overwhelmingly support the concept that life forms evolve if there was ';Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change';?
I'm absolutely serious. Why would they?
The central concept of evolution is that ';major change'; occurs by millions of years of ';minor change'; piled on top of ';minor change.'; So it is disingenuous to ask to see ';major change'; in a short amount of time.
That would be like demanding to see an oak tree grow in a matter of a few days before you will accept that it grows at all.
So the evidence of small change can be measured in real time (within generations) right down to the gene level. And we can even achieve significant change within a few hundred generations just by selective breeding ... look what we have done with cows, or dogs, or even moreso with crops like corn or bananas.
But the evidence of *very large change* must be measured in thousands of generations, and so the evidence switches from being direct evidence to being indirect (what we call ';forensic';) evidence. Things like fossils that document major changes ... or DNA evidence that shows conclusively that two modern (and very different) species evolved from a common ancestor, and therefore must have both undergone major changes ... or common structures between different species (such as the human hand, bats wing, or dog's foot all showing exactly the same bone structure) that shows that the same structures underwent major change to serve radically different functions.
It is a complete mistake to think that indirect (forensic) evidence is not evidence at all. To do so discards pretty much all science. For example, how do we know that the sun is made of hydrogen? Not from *direct* evidence (nobody has ever been to the sun ... no probe has ever ';landed'; on the sun to bring back a sample, and none ever will) ... but from *indirect* evidence of the nature of light we receive.How Did Millions of Life Forms Evolve With Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change?
If you were ';serious'; about this question ... why did you not stick around to pick an answer?
Report Abuse
Major change as in bacteria becoming a crocodile because of a radioactive comet passing through earths atmosphere?
This is because it took millions, upon billions of years for not only life organisms to separate into different forms/species, but to evolve into what we knew of them being and what life is now today.
I don't understand your question. There is plenty of evidence for major changes in biological organisms through time.
Major change?
What about millions upon millions of small gradual changes over several billion years?
That is what we have: small changes which when put together show drastic and large scale changes.
Compare a lobe finned fish with a human.
Now compare a lobe finned fish, an early tetropod, a early reptile, a synapsid, a early therian, protoprimates, lemurs, primitive monkeys, primitive apes, hominids, humans.
If life forms did appear with only evidence of major change, that would be more problematic. But that is not what we see.
Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change?
I've seen lots of evidence - why do you say there is none? Or is this just a mindless cut and paste?
I'm not taking this seriously at all.
Scientists have found evidence of lots of change. If you have not studied the world we live in then you are missing out on Gods beautiful world. There are many scientists who are Christians. Believing in God and / or any religious teachings does not preclude accepting the results of reasoned inquiry into the workings of the universe. The written Bible is a communication from God. It tells us of His love and it tells of how to live a righteous life and achieve salivation.
Have you heard someone say that the world around us is proof that God exists? The world is also a “communication” from God. Since a “bible” is, at its core, a communication from God the existence of the world really constitutes a second Bible. There are really two Bibles- the written Bible and the natural Bible. The natural Bible is the universe we live in and its rules that tell us of the existence and nature of God. Each Bible has its “message.” As stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” The key words here are, “in righteousness.” Using English rules it could be clarified as, “…is profitable for doctrine in righteousness, for reproof in righteousness, for correction in righteousness, for instruction in righteousness:” The written Bible is a book of God’s love, of how to live a righteous life and achieve salivation. It is not a scientific text. Those who use the written Bible in ways for which it was not intended are dishonoring God and his creation – the universe and everything in it.
The power of the written Bible does not lie in it being word-for-word literal. The power of the written Bible lies in its ability to go outside the literal. The verse in Mathew 5:13, “Ye are the salt of the earth:” makes no sense if taken literally – we are not salt. But it becomes beautiful if taken metaphorically. Because the written Bible has metaphor and allegory and other literary devices it must be studied to understand its true meaning. Without Bible study it is possible to misinterpret the written Bible.
The natural Bible is the most direct communication we have from God. It is right in front of us, under our feet and over our heads, everyday. Whereas the written Bible is, at best, a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation of the original text – the natural Bible consists of the world and universe we live in and the rules God set down at the creation of the universe. These rule are with us today and these rules are everywhere the same.
The natural world and its manifestations – the animals and plants, the rocks and fossils, the land masses, the planets, stars and galaxies are all as a result of the rules laid down at the creation of the universe. But, just as you must study the written Bible, so too you must study the natural Bible. At first glance, as a child, I thought I lived on a flat Earth with the Sun going around the Earth. Man had such an initial view of the universe, too. It was through study of the natural bible – the world As It Is - that we found that God’s universe was more beautiful and profound than that first simplistic view. Those who want to take away the majesty of the universe and force it into a constricted, literalistic view taken from the written Bible are dishonoring God and his creation. Each Bible has its area of validity. Just as Social Darwinism was wrong because took lessons from the natural Bible and tried to apply them into the world of human conduct – so, too, creationism is wrong because it takes lessons from the written Bible and tries to apply them into the world reality that is here before us. To use the bible in this way dishonors the world that God created.
Just as a atheist can read the written Bible and understand the power of a verse like Leviticus 19:18, “… thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…” so too an atheistic scientist can study the natural world and uncover the God-given rules that exist in the world today and have existed since He created the universe. The rules, so discovered, are just as valid as if uncovered by a Christian who is a scientist if both use a developed capability to reason given to man by God. The key here is SCIENTIST - ';one who seeks to know.';
It is up to each person to use their intelligence and whatever proficiency to reason they have developed in order to decide issues for themselves. Each person has been given a potential to reason but just as being given a potential to play the piano does not automatically give that person the proficiency to play the piano-.so, too, the proficiency to reason must be developed. That is why some people are swayed by irrational arguments that deny God’s creation - AS IT IS.
If you'd really like to know, take a biology course and then an evolutionary biology course. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers documenting evidence for major changes and how such changes occurred, and a good professor can summarize it nicely in a one-semester class - not in a paragraph.
';I would really like to know';
just by the way and the tone you set from asking this question one can very easily determine:
No you don't
if you actually do, see the above answers
No comments:
Post a Comment