# How can I believe in evolution?

probability calculation: Protein synthesis not possible in water, Cut 5%. Australopethicus not bipedal, cut 5%. Protein synthesis not possible on UV rays from the sun on land, cut 5%. Mutations only damage, not add to, genome, cut 5%. Natural selection doesn't create new species, only eliminates the unfit, cut 5%. Fossil records show unchanged sea creatures up to 0.5 billion years, cut 5%. Aquatic creatures can't make the leap to land, cut 5%. Matter is not self-organizing, cut 5%. Miller's experiment was about Ammonia, modern science shows Ammonia wasn't abundant back then, cut 5%. No fossils found showing transitional links of evolution, cut 5%. Evolution doesn't explain complexity, cut 5%. The eye of trilobites, cut 5%. That brings 40%. Add faith: +60%. Therefore, there is a 100% probability that evolution explains life. edit: whoops forgot thermodynamics, which removes 100%.
66-70, M 24 Answers Jan 4, 2013 in Hobbies

it's ok...evolution believes in you

When I look at the monkeys in the zoo I don't think I could ever get to be as smart as them.

Ew I hate big blocks of text. I am not answering this...

You just did.

Just do it.

Easiest question of the day!<br />
<br />
It's disturbingly simple. Ready...? DO YOUR RESEARCH. When you come across claims made by others, either repeat the experiment for yourself, or accept the verification from dozens of other scientists who perform the same experiment to test the hypothesis of the original scientist. Understand, however, that evolution is a series of processes, and not one single theory, unless you simplify it to the lowest denominator-- but of course, anything you do that to will have massive holes you could drive the Divine through. ;)

Okay. You proved your point.<br />
<br />
Therefore, there is a 100% probability that evolution explains life.

I can't find a single fault with this reasoning.

Evolution does exist, but not in the way some people do. I do not believe human life came to earth because of evolution or that we evolved from monkeys. Humans were made by God.<br />
<br />
But animals do evolve in some ways, to deal with a changing enviroment or ecosystem.

I believe in creationism. I am an observant Jew.

And an exhibitionist.

Science is only a branch of learning, it does not reflect the truth.<br />
Evolution is only a scientific theory, it does not reflect the truth.<br />
Religion is divine education about the truth, it does not tell man<br />
to believe blindly, but to study as with science or with any other<br />
branches of learning.<br />
Greater efforts are required to attain the truth: Getting in touch with <br />
the timely Messenger of God, practicing His counsels about<br />
fasting, praying, meditating, making pilgrimage, serving mankind...<br />
Truth is not a thing to be put in any box for man to place on <br />
the altar to believe in or urging other people to believe in.<br />
Truth is living, progressive and eternal.

You don't have to "believe" Just look at the facts and there is NO doubt. Not verything requires a belief system. Facts over ride that.

I believe in God and I believe he allowed evolution to work the way it did. There is little possibility that man was just set on earth out of nowhere. Science explians many things and I trust it as much as I trust Gods promise to me. =) You can believe what you want, but know there is no harm in believing in God because if youre wrong, nothing happens anyway, right? =) but if you dont believe and he's real, Oh man, thatll suck for you. =( Think about it God bless.

It's pretty simple if you accept the obvious factor of Intelligent creation. We have no idea what physical laws and systems that God used to create all things; I don't think that it's a stretch at all to presume that he could build into the DNA of living things the ability to adapt, develop as he chose. I just don't see why evolution and Intelligent design should be mutually exclusive.

man in to intense lighten up and go **** your sister

It's hard to know what happened. There are many questions and too many answers are really only guesses.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/<br />
<br />
Yeah now read this and find out how all that is bullshit. <br />
<br />
Oh; matter can't self organise? Explain soap bubbles then.

That's order, not organization. be a man and stop with virus linx.

Lol be a man and read it.

Oh and get a grip of thermodynamics; there's this thing in the sky called "The Sun" which gives us energy so the second law doesn't apply.

Hahaha the Sun does not directly give energy. The autotrophs convert it. But thanks for being polite when making that claim. I felt easier replying to you, when most people make that argument they usually finish it with "moron"

The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional (conversion in this case)

So you've never been sun burned then?

Wtf? Sun burns don't create order (last time I checked). And they certainly don't create amino acids! :P

Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

Yes the laws of physics, which give rise to chemistry. In any case using the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a germane criticism of evolution. In fact if you're concerned with the origins of life it is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution only deals with what happens to life after it starts, not the origin of that life.

But the sun does provide heat energy and everyone who's been to school knows what happens when you heat up reactive chemicals.....oh look more complex chemicals!

Abiogenesis is a SET of hypotheses, rather than a theory itself. Also the basic idea is: Protein synthesis sneaked past Le-Chatelier's principle and made a membrane in water. Or: Protein synthesis occurred on land despite UV radiation from the Sun.

Actually the most current hypotheses are that it happened in wet clay.

Yes but everyone who's been to a BAR (not school) knows that amino acids won't assemble into a membrane in such hot conditions.

Who said it was hot? Fact is we can and have synthesized amino acids under conditions similar to the early Earth and also they've been found in fragments of asteroids raising the possibility that they originally came from space where the conditions for their creation exist in abundance.

Amino acids have been found. Not protein. Thing is, in miller's experiment, the primordial Earth's conditions were considered different from what they are today.

Yeah and new Miller type experiments have been done that more accurately reflect the early Earth and they have been successful.

Unfortunately, not without Ammonia. However, they did manage to make amino acids, which would've disintegrated anyway because of hydrolysis.

Here's a good quote:
"Geologist now think that the primordial
atmosphere consisted
mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen,
gases that are less reactive
than those used in the 1953
experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere
could have existed, how
do you get simple molecules such
as amino acids to go through the
necessary chemical changes that
will convert them into more complicated
compounds, or polymers,
such as proteins? Miller himself
throws up his hands at that part of
the puzzle. "It's a problem," he
sighs with exasperation. "How do
you make polymers? That's not so
easy."
(Earth, "Life's Crucible", February 1998, p.34)

That's a good quote *mine*

Lol. Any quote I give turns out to be a "quote mine"
It's fully in context, dude.