Why do you reject evolution

[SarcasticLemon]

I want to know coming from people my age who dont accept this large scientific principal known as evolution. Why dont you believe it? What is your reasoning behind your belief that goes against large amounts of evidence. I would like to know.

 

[Breathing]

Suppose modern science discovers something new, and comes comes to the conclusion that it is impossible for the moon to be orbiting the earth. (I'm not saying this is particularly likely, just asking you to suppose) The evidence is irrefutable, it is simply impossible for the moon to be there. You, of course, walk outside your house and see the moon up there, orbiting. What would be your thought? It would certainly not be "ah, just as I suspected, there is no moon!"; It would probably be more along the lines of "Well, clearly, the moon is up there. They'll figure out why the moon is up there eventually." This is maybe a little over simplified, but I think it makes sense. We would not deny the existance of the moon, we would assume science just couldn't yet explain the prescence of the moon, and that perhaps one day we would understand how it all works.

This is how I feel about evolution. (Actually, I have no problem with evolution, only with the process taking millions of years) The bible cites 6,000 years since the earth was made, the bible cites the earth being made in six days. We may not understand evolution yet fully, or it may turn out to be completely false. I am not going to abandon my beliefs just because science hasn't caught up with them yet.

The invariable arguement that follows is "your faith and seeing the moon are somewhat different." Here is where all arguement falls apart. I have felt Christ, felt Him calling to my soul to come to Him and follow Him more and so on; I cannot prove it to you, just as I cannot prove to you the vacuum in your soul is there and will never be filled without God. But we both know it is there. Satan simply doesn't want you to admit it. I challenge you to be real, to stop hiding behind your facts.

 

[Hakan101]

I don't see how evolution disproves God, contradicts the Bible, or is a flawless theory. I think it has some good evidence but ultimately there are still issues that evolution fails to answer.

Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to seek. Are you genuinely interested in specifically answers from people your age, or do you want to know about just claims against evolution? I think the latter is more important, and the ones qualified to answer it are far older than you or me.

 

[SarcasticLemon]

Suppose modern science discovers something new, and comes comes to the conclusion that it is impossible for the moon to be orbiting the earth. (I'm not saying this is particularly likely, just asking you to suppose) The evidence is irrefutable, it is simply impossible for the moon to be there. You, of course, walk outside your house and see the moon up there, orbiting. What would be your thought? It would certainly not be "ah, just as I suspected, there is no moon!"; It would probably be more along the lines of "Well, clearly, the moon is up there. They'll figure out why the moon is up there eventually." This is maybe a little over simplified, but I think it makes sense. We would not deny the existance of the moon, we would assume science just couldn't yet explain the prescence of the moon, and that perhaps one day we would understand how it all works.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

This is how I feel about evolution. (Actually, I have no problem with evolution, only with the process taking millions of years) The bible cites 6,000 years since the earth was made, the bible cites the earth being made in six days. We may not understand evolution yet fully, or it may turn out to be completely false. I am not going to abandon my beliefs just because science hasn't caught up with them yet.

So you are saying that evolution requires more evidence in order for you to accept it but Christianity which virtually lacks all evidence you still accept because it has a more developed answer based off of less evidence.

The invariable arguement that follows is "your faith and seeing the moon are somewhat different." Here is where all arguement falls apart. I have felt Christ, felt Him calling to my soul to come to Him and follow Him more and so on; I cannot prove it to you

I need proof and i see it as unfair to make a world where proof of a gods existence is unobtainable but he just comes to people and makes them feel something.

just as I cannot prove to you the vacuum in your soul is there and will never be filled without God. But we both know it is there. Satan simply doesn't want you to admit it. I challenge you to be real, to stop hiding behind your facts.

Ok, this is what really bothers me about you guys. I believe that there is no god so how in the world could i think that there is a gap in my soul for one? If satan was controlling me does that mean that free will is demolished? You know how hard it is to become an atheist? This is who I am and you cannot claim to know that "oh its just satan" without any proof.

 

[SarcasticLemon]

I don't see how evolution disproves God, contradicts the Bible, or is a flawless theory. I think it has some good evidence but ultimately there are still issues that evolution fails to answer.

Yes it does it goes against the claim that the bible makes that the earth was make in a week including all animals, plants and geographical features that according to science would have taken billions of years. As well as humans which are made from dirt (which is find more belittling to humans than monkeys)

Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to seek. Are you genuinely interested in specifically answers from people your age, or do you want to know about just claims against evolution? I think the latter is more important, and the ones qualified to answer it are far older than you or me.

I want to know what people my age who reject it say and whether it is logical or just a mirroring of their parents ideals.

 

[Hakan101]

Yes it does it goes against the claim that the bible makes that the earth was make in a week including all animals, plants and geographical features that according to science would have taken billions of years. As well as humans which are made from dirt (which is find more belittling to humans than monkeys)

I want to know what people my age who reject it say and whether it is logical or just a mirroring of their parents ideals.

You take the Genesis too literally.

People your age have a teenager's understanding of evolution. If they can't give an intellectual argument on why they reject the evolution theory, does that mean they're wrong?

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

i reject evolution?

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

I found for me that over a period of time my creationism just began to slip from me. As I grew more in my faith things like the age of the Earth and the origin of species just seemed less important to me.

When I read Genesis 1 I wasn't so much amazed by 'wow, our God is so amazing He created the world in 6 days!' I found myself being more amazed by the creativity of God in Creation, and in the fact that He has always been perfectly sovereign over it. How exactly it happened didn't really carry much importance with me anymore. At the same time I began to realize that the reason it was written to the Hebrews in the first place wasn't to tell them "our God is so amazing He created the world in 6 days!" It was written to tell them that the God they serve was in fact the Creator God of all the Universe and was above every other god.

At the same time I have to think 'why did the author chose to write the Creation story this way?' And to me it seemed very obvious. By telling the story of Creation as a progression of days it reveals the creative nature to God. The universe was a chaotic mess. Then God brought order to it by dividing light/dark, water/sky, land/sea. He also began to fill it with creatures who would serve Him. He is constantly improving on Creation and making it more beautiful.

Then I also have to think... Now, let's say that the Earth IS 4.56 billion years old and the Universe is 14 billion (or however old science says it is. I can't remember) years old. How would a person tell the story of Creation? Would the Bible begin with a list of events from natural history? That seems entirely purposeless and does very little to illustrate the point that the author would be trying to make which is simply...

a) God created the universe and everything in it
b) When God created it, it was good
c) God is creative and is constantly revealing His glory in new ways by filling Creation
d) Man was made in the image of God

To me a 6 day creation story seems much more appropriate to illustrate the author's intent.



That (with other reasons) is to me why I'm perfectly fine with Genesis not needing to be taken literally in order for one to believe that the Bible is the inerrent word of God.

 

[SarcasticLemon]

So let me get this strait:

Instead of god making his message clear he uses metaphores along with a complete absence of evidence for anything that he does. So if you should not take the bible literally then who is to say it isnt a teaching made by god at all but just a bunch of stories that can be used to guide our lives. Everyones interpretation of the bible is different so how do we know we are praising the same god anyway? Others in fact might say that genesis is entirely literal while others might think its entirely figurative. There is a big difference between something that is fact or fiction, fact is strait forward answer while fiction has many different answers depending on who the reader is.

Im going to go with theories that have actual evidence and proof behind them and i have a hard time putting my faith in anything that cant be proved.

 

[Bordamere]

Suppose modern science discovers something new, and comes comes to the conclusion that it is impossible for the moon to be orbiting the earth. (I'm not saying this is particularly likely, just asking you to suppose) The evidence is irrefutable, it is simply impossible for the moon to be there. You, of course, walk outside your house and see the moon up there, orbiting. What would be your thought? It would certainly not be "ah, just as I suspected, there is no moon!"; It would probably be more along the lines of "Well, clearly, the moon is up there. They'll figure out why the moon is up there eventually." This is maybe a little over simplified, but I think it makes sense. We would not deny the existance of the moon, we would assume science just couldn't yet explain the prescence of the moon, and that perhaps one day we would understand how it all works.

It isn't very clear what you're talking about here. But I think what we have here is a problem between intuition and scientific reality. This happened multiple times over the course of the development of physics and eventually lead to the Quantum revolution. Some things may look like they are clear or make sense, but really have a much different reality behind them (see the double slit experiment for a good example of this).

Trust me, no scientist would make such a claim like that unless they were very very sure that they were right. Scientific research community is a good example of a field of survival of the fittest, because when you have your idea you publish a paper on it, and if you did something incorrect in your analysis, someone would point it out and shoot the idea down. And if the scientific community came out with irrefutable evidence that the moon doesn't exist, then I would just have to buck up and accept it not matter what my intuition of seeing a shining object in the sky every day tells me, because there is no way that you could refute that (I'm not sure that irrefutable was the work you were looking for : \. Tell me if I'm incorrect in believing this).

You are also commenting on one of sciences strongest point, it's ability to change. They are constantly trying to search for a better and better explanation of reality. This means that they will be wrong at points and require change. But just because they are "wrong" doesn't mean that the ideas are completely thrown out. Even after einstein's theories of relativity replaced Newton's gravitational equations are the correct way, Newton's equations were still used for calculations with good accuracy (Einstein's equations are only required for when gravitational forces are very strong and/or speed is very very high). Newton's equations may have been "wrong", but they were certainly more right than claiming that a deity is the reason why objects fall.

This is how I feel about evolution. (Actually, I have no problem with evolution, only with the process taking millions of years) The bible cites 6,000 years since the earth was made, the bible cites the earth being made in six days. We may not understand evolution yet fully, or it may turn out to be completely false. I am not going to abandon my beliefs just because science hasn't caught up with them yet.

Why are you applying the bible as a source of scientific truth? And what I see here is that you have what you believe (the bible, 6000 years) and you aren't going to accept something like evolution until it lines up with what you believe. Science, to you, isn't a path to the truth, but something that is used only when it agrees with your belief. You are correct that we may not understand evolution fully yet and that it may turn out to be wrong. But the probability of that is probably in the same range as gravity spontaneously turning off tomorrow, or seeing a puddle of water on a sidewalk spontaneously morphing into an ice cube (breaking the second law of thermodynamics).

What would science have to do to catch up with your beliefs, because the way that I am interpreting this is that you won't believe science until it is consistant with you beliefs.

The invariable arguement that follows is "your faith and seeing the moon are somewhat different." Here is where all arguement falls apart. I have felt Christ, felt Him calling to my soul to come to Him and follow Him more and so on; I cannot prove it to you, just as I cannot prove to you the vacuum in your soul is there and will never be filled without God. But we both know it is there. Satan simply doesn't want you to admit it. I challenge you to be real, to stop hiding behind your facts.

The problem though is that we both don't know it is there. Saying that Satan doesn't want someone like me to admit it is in my opinion a rationalization for why this feeling is only directed in one way.

How do you want us to be real? In what way are we not being real? And how can someone hide behind facts? If anything the truth is something revealing.

And you faith and the moon existence are completely different. Ignoring all other evidence, we actually sent people there and left equipment on the moon, and planted a flag, and brought back pieces of the moon. You can't land on something that doesn't exist.

Can you tell me what evidence you have beyond your faith?

 

[Incariol]

I want to know coming from people my age who dont accept this large scientific principal known as evolution. Why dont you believe it? What is your reasoning behind your belief that goes against large amounts of evidence. I would like to know.

I don't reject evolution.

 

[Mess]

Why do I reject evolution? Well that depends, I fully support the idea of micro evolution, there is no doubt that micro evolution is a fact. But micro evolution is the kind of evolution that uses information already present in our genetics so that really doesn't prove the whole theory of macro evolution of microbe to human. In fact, we have never witnessed any of that macro evolution stuff they claim happens, we can't even witness it in our fossil records, despite the many millions of fossils discovered. There are just so many flaws with the theory of evolution, just so many things that require you to shut off your mind to any logical reasoning, to ignore aspects that so clearly contradict it's own theory(take the simple laws of thermo dynamics for example), that I really see no other choice than to deny that the theory of evolution is something that could possibly be true. All I can ask you to do is, to research both sides with an open mind, just follow the evidence even if you don't like where it's going.

 

[Paradoxum]

Why do I reject evolution? Well that depends, I fully support the idea of micro evolution, there is no doubt that micro evolution is a fact. But micro evolution is the kind of evolution that uses information already present in our genetics so that really doesn't prove the whole theory of macro evolution of microbe to human.

Why is it that every time a creationist answers these types of questions they feel the need to point out that they believe in micro not macro?

In fact, we have never witnessed any of that macro evolution stuff they claim happens, we can't even witness it in our fossil records, despite the many millions of fossils discovered.

Of course we have never seen it, it happens over millions of years. We can see it in the fossil record and genetics though. For example at the end of all chromosomes there is a certain sequence and humans have one less chromosome than apes. In chromosome 2 of humans, near the middle is the sequence that is normally at the end. This shows that two chromosomes of the apes fused together to make our chromosome 2.

There are just so many flaws with the theory of evolution, just so many things that require you to shut off your mind to any logical reasoning,

But that isn't true.

to ignore aspects that so clearly contradict it's own theory(take the simple laws of thermo dynamics for example),

It doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics because the earth isn't a closed system and gets energy from the Sun.

that I really see no other choice than to deny that the theory of evolution is something that could possibly be true. All I can ask you to do is, to research both sides with an open mind, just follow the evidence even if you don't like where it's going.

When I was 16/17 I read a book that convinced me evolution was false. Then I realised I was wrong, that Christians can be wrong even if they sound right and that I can't be rejecting evolution while at the same time I am amazed by quantum theory which is MUCH more illogical than anything in evolutionary theory.

 

[Mess]

Why is it that every time a creationist answers these types of questions they feel the need to point out that they believe in micro not macro?

Because that is an important distinction. Because one is visible and the other isn't.

Of course we have never seen it, it happens over millions of years. We can see it in the fossil record and genetics though. For example at the end of all chromosomes there is a certain sequence and humans have one less chromosome than apes. In chromosome 2 of humans, near the middle is the sequence that is normally at the end. This shows that two chromosomes of the apes fused together to make our chromosome 2.

Actually we can't find it in fossils. There are no transitional forms, not even a single one(hilarious aint it?), not to mention that if it takes millions of years why aren't there any actual transiitonal forms around right now? Or just the simple fact that a transitional form can't survive? I mean a bird with half a wing how does that survive? All we see in fossil records are small monkeys or big monkeys, small elephants or big elephants, but you can be small or big you're still human. Not to mention this, who on earth did those transitional forms, which are completely absent in the fossil records, reproduce with? With themselves? With air? So because we have one less chromosone we are descended of apes, how about a snail maybe they have one less chromosone than us? OH MY GOSH WE HAVE EVOLVED INTO SNAILS, ALL HAIL THE SNAIL ZEH KINGS OF THE UNIVERSE!

It doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics because the earth isn't a closed system and gets energy from the Sun.

So you basically admitted here that we need to ignore them in order for the theory to function just the tiniest bit. Too bad that everything everywhere in the universe strives for disorder, while there is so much order there. You can't blame that on earth, or it's existence, that is a scientific universal fact. But hey like I said, you guys need to change and manipulate everything to make a case, just like you need to do with dating... oh wait that dating method does not work... well let's try that one... doesn't work either... well how about this one then?

When I was 16/17 I read a book that convinced me evolution was false. Then I realised I was wrong, that Christians can be wrong even if they sound right and that I can't be rejecting evolution while at the same time I am amazed by quantum theory which is MUCH more illogical than anything in evolutionary theory.

Sure Christians can be wrong, so can scientists. Secular scientists themselves say their theory lacks logic, and evidence and is based on blind faith because they do not wish to acknowledge the error of their ways.

 

[Paradoxum]

Because that is an important distinction. Because one is visible and the other isn't.

Ok.

Actually we can't find it in fossils. There are no transitional forms, not even a single one(hilarious aint it?),

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

not to mention that if it takes millions of years why aren't there any actual transiitonal forms around right now?

I think you misunderstand how it works. All animals that exist at all times are transitions from one form to another. Every animals alive today is a transition from what it once was to what it will be in the future.

Or just the simple fact that a transitional form can't survive? I mean a bird with half a wing how does that survive?

Well it would have been a dinosaur that had feathers, then one that could glide a small amount, then glide further, and then finally fly. It would start as something that didn't NEED flight, but slowly became able too.

All we see in fossil records are small monkeys or big monkeys, small elephants or big elephants, but you can be small or big you're still human. Not to mention this, who on earth did those transitional forms, which are completely absent in the fossil records, reproduce with? With themselves? With air?

The transitional forms mated with their own kinda. Its not as if only one animal evolved at a time. The whole species evolves together.

So because we have one less chromosone we are descended of apes, how about a snail maybe they have one less chromosone than us? OH MY GOSH WE HAVE EVOLVED INTO SNAILS, ALL HAIL THE SNAIL ZEH KINGS OF THE UNIVERSE!

I didn't say it was because we have one less chromosome. I said it was also to do with the placing of gene sequences in the chromosome. It is just one example of many.

So you basically admitted here that we need to ignore them in order for the theory to function just the tiniest bit. Too bad that everything everywhere in the universe strives for disorder, while there is so much order there. You can't blame that on earth, or it's existence, that is a scientific universal fact.

So EVERYTHING tend to disorder? How then are babies born? They are made of disordered material but become an ordered human. The answer is that energy from the mother is used to create a human. In evolution energy from the Sun is used.

But hey like I said, you guys need to change and manipulate everything to make a case, just like you need to do with dating... oh wait that dating method does not work... well let's try that one... doesn't work either... well how about this one then?

They do

Sure Christians can be wrong, so can scientists. Secular scientists themselves say their theory lacks logic, and evidence and is based on blind faith because they do not wish to acknowledge the error of their ways.

Yeah scientists can be wrong, but they aren't about this. I don't say that because I'm arrogant, it is just a sure theory overall.

 

[Bordamere]

There isn't any distinction between micro and macro evolution. If you believe in micro, then you believe in macro because macro is just a bunch of micro added up.

There are just so many flaws with the theory of evolution, just so many things that require you to shut off your mind to any logical reasoning, to ignore aspects that so clearly contradict it's own theory(take the simple laws of thermo dynamics for example), that I really see no other choice than to deny that the theory of evolution is something that could possibly be true.

Please instead of just saying that there are flaws can you please state what they are? If the flaws are so glaringly obvious that you don't even need to state them, then I'm sure the scientific community would have caught on to them by now and corrected their theories accordingly.

And as was already stated above, the (second law of) thermodynamics example you gave is poor a misunderstanding because it is referring to a closed system, which the earth is clearly not. The sun is constantly providing energy to the earth allowing randomness to decrease and functions like evolutions to emerge. This is a claim that is constantly reused even after it has been corrected. I don't want to accuse you of being ingenuous, but you should never use that argument again because it is blatantly false.

So you basically admitted here that we need to ignore them in order for the theory to function just the tiniest bit. Too bad that everything everywhere in the universe strives for disorder, while there is so much order there.

She admitted nothing. She was just clearly stating what the law says. A closed system is one in which no energy is coming in. There is energy coming in from the sun. That allows there to be order.

There are no transitional forms, not even a single one(hilarious aint it?), not to mention that if it takes millions of years why aren't there any actual transiitonal forms around right now? Or just the simple fact that a transitional form can't survive? I mean a bird with half a wing how does that survive? All we see in fossil records are small monkeys or big monkeys, small elephants or big elephants, but you can be small or big you're still human. Not to mention this, who on earth did those transitional forms, which are completely absent in the fossil records, reproduce with? With themselves? With air? So because we have one less chromosone we are descended of apes, how about a snail maybe they have one less chromosone than us? OH MY GOSH WE HAVE EVOLVED INTO SNAILS, ALL HAIL THE SNAIL ZEH KINGS OF THE UNIVERSE!

I don't know if this is an attempt at a straw man or an even worse attempt at mockery.

First off, there are transitional forms around today. Every species on the planet is a transitional form evolving from what we are now into forms forms that have yet to come into existence. This probably isn't very clear because we don't have fossils from the future yet in which to compare ourselves and past human fossils.

Or just the simple fact that a transitional form can't survive? I mean a bird with half a wing how does that survive?

This is another misunderstanding that I hope I can help clear up. Nowhere in any science book is it stated that birds evolved one wing at a time. You can go an ask any biologist and you will receive any answer nothing like you just stated. If this is what you believe then it is clear why you don't believe in evolution, because you have a misunderstanding about what is going on. Both the wings grow in at the same time, but it happens over a periods of millions of years. Some dinosaur developed stubs which where beneficial to it's survival, and they grew and grew and grew over hundreds (probably thousands) of generations. Fossils are a rare occurrence in themselves, but there have still been many significant finds that show the evolutions process.

Also, the transitional forms would reproduce with other members of the transitional form. Evolution on that scale of change takes millions of years to go into effect, in within that time period there will be a gradual shift of change. It's not like the transitional forms are quantum steps that there is nothing in between. If fossils were a more common occurrence then we would be able to find a perfect line of change from one to the other.

OH MY GOSH WE HAVE EVOLVED INTO SNAILS, ALL HAIL THE SNAIL ZEH KINGS OF THE UNIVERSE!

Your post could have really done without this. It adds nothing to the conversation.

Secular scientists themselves say their theory lacks logic, and evidence and is based on blind faith because they do not wish to acknowledge the error of their ways.

I demand a source of any sort for these statements. It sounds more like you projecting your worldview upon scientists and not like anything a scientist would say.

 

[dark.lightning]

Charles Darwin came up with the theory and later disproved it.

 

[Ration]

Actually we can't find it in fossils. There are no transitional forms, not even a single one(hilarious aint it?), not to mention that if it takes millions of years why aren't there any actual transiitonal forms around right now? Or just the simple fact that a transitional form can't survive?

Who the hell told you there are no transitional forms? YOU are a transitional form. You seem pretty alive for me.

I mean a bird with half a wing how does that survive? All we see in fossil records are small monkeys or big monkeys, small elephants or big elephants, but you can be small or big you're still human. Not to mention this, who on earth did those transitional forms, which are completely absent in the fossil records, reproduce with? With themselves? With air?

The biologist in me is insulted. If you are going to criticize evolution, please learn how it works in the first place.

So because we have one less chromosone we are descended of apes, how about a snail maybe they have one less chromosone than us? OH MY GOSH WE HAVE EVOLVED INTO SNAILS, ALL HAIL THE SNAIL ZEH KINGS OF THE UNIVERSE!

Snails have 12 chromosomal pairs, we have 24. So yes, you should hail them.
EDIT: To be fair, you should also include slime mold and swamp Wallabies in your hailing.

So you basically admitted here that we need to ignore them in order for the theory to function just the tiniest bit. Too bad that everything everywhere in the universe strives for disorder, while there is so much order there. You can't blame that on earth, or it's existence, that is a scientific universal fact. But hey like I said, you guys need to change and manipulate everything to make a case, just like you need to do with dating... oh wait that dating method does not work... well let's try that one... doesn't work either... well how about this one then?

And now the phycisist in me is insulted. If you're going to criticize thermodynamics, please learn how it works. The sun is a giant, hot, plasma-y ball of disorder, and the earth is not a closed system. In fact the suns disorder more than makes up for the fact that the earth is a more ordered system. Anyway, statistical mechanics allows for small pockets of increased order, provided the system is not isolated (which ours isn't) and that the overall tendency is toward disorder.

If you're having issues with dating, maybe you should practice with the opposite gender. It's not really sciences perogative.

More on entropy and thermodynamics:
Entropy and evolution : Pharyngula

Also, evolution through, wait for it. PURE CHANCE:
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

Arguably macro evolution as well, considering the lack of ability to process citrate is one of the defining features of E. Coli.

 

[Bordamere]

Charles Darwin came up with the theory and later disproved it.

This is the first that I have ever heard of anything along these lines. I am very interested in the source of this statement for I when I come across something I don't know and would have ramifications on how humanity fundamentally views the world then I feel like I should do myself a favor and learn about it.

I think that this may be referring to his supposed rejection of the theory of evolution on his deathbed, but any story along those lines is 100% false guaranteed. Darwin's opinion doesn't matter anyways because scientific truth is beyond opinion or loyalty.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Evolution has never been confirmed on a macro level. Micro I am cool with. Breeds and versions of a species is micro evolution. Like Windows XP vs. Windows 7. Practically the same system, just different looks. Still Windows. But macro evolution has never been confirmed, and still continues to be contradicted(or at least put into serious questioning). Evolution also is not some universal fact, it is a theory, and I wouldn't even call it that. I would say hypothesis. Show me the empircal data, the observations of it happening, and the experiments that have been done to prove evolution. The answer is: there is none. The problem with Darwin's original hypothesis was his aim. He called it the "origin of species". This begs for a beginning, something never given by evolutionists. Darwin's original hypothesis was the "changing of one animal species to another through DNA modification". This hypothesis has been proven wrong due to the gene pool or biological laws like,"Like species produce like beings." A hypothesis, until proven, cannot be taken seriously and make such smart individuals in the human race abandon the laws and truth set forth by God.