What are the facts about evolution, In layman's term?


22 Answers

  • 10 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    First of all, it depends on what kind of "evolution" you are referring to (the word simply means "change over time"):

    -Cosmic evolution (the Big Bang)—including things like galactic, stellar, and planetary evolution.

    -Chemical evolution (or Abiogenesis)—life from non-life.

    -Biological evolution (Darwinism)—universal common descent through mutation and natural selection.

    -Or minor changes within individual species that occur over short periods of time (sometimes called micro-evolution)—which isn't controversial at all.

    Most of the time, people just give examples of natural selection or genetic drift and assume it points to undirected microbes-to-man evolution. Even young-earth creationists believe in natural selection and "speciation." Take a look at these:



    Microevolution versus Macroevolution


    They will give an example of something like Peppered Moths, but as biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells has said, “Darwinian evolution requires much more than the selection of beneficial traits, and much more than a shift in the proportions of light-and dark-colored moths. It requires the descent with modification of all living things from one or a few common ancestors. Darwin did not write a book titled How the Proportions of Two Pre-existing Moth Varieties Can Change Through Natural Selection; he wrote a book titled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” (Revenge of the Peppered Moths).


    Here is a growing list of scientists who signed “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-do...

    “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” List: The Tip of an Iceberg


    Bacteria to Beethoven


    Youtube thumbnail

  • 10 months ago

    In layman's terms "First of all there was nothing and then it exploded creating everything".

  • 10 months ago

    Atheistic evolution pretends that in spite of mutations' tendency towards weakness, disease, death, and extinction they cumulatively account for the diversity of life we see on the Earth today.

  • Paul
    Lv 7
    10 months ago

    The members of a species are not all identical. They vary from one another in many ways. When there is as major change in the environment in which they live, the change affects some of them in a positive way and others in a negative way. Those affected negatively may die, while those better suited to withstand the changes will survive. Over a long period of time, with the accumulation of many such changes, the survivors are so different from the original population that it only makes sense to consider them a different species.

    born again Christian biologist

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 months ago

    What are you doing in R&S?

  • David
    Lv 7
    10 months ago

    The facts about evolution? You won't find any on this forum; mainly opinion.

    How about a dozen facts AGAINST evolution? One's not enough, two, maybe. How about a hundred? Not sure the length of the list is what will convince a denier. Evidence is for a thinker, a truth seeker, not an opinion seeker.

    Sometimes it is argued that evolution is true because it is the "scientific consensus position." Most scientists believe in evolution. But this doesn't make it true. This fallacy is called the "inappropriate appeal to authority," or Ad Populum Fallacy.

    Those atheists denying the evidence of the Bible are essentially saying "creation cannot be true because it involves the supernatural." Atheists fear and deny anything to do with God, and demand that Science must be limited to natural explanations.

    This begs the question because whether the universe was naturally formed or supernaturally created is the very question at issue. In the above argument, the evolutionist has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove. Another example would be, "how can the Bible be right about a ~6,OOO-year-old earth, when we know from radiometric dating that the world is billions of years old?" This assumes that radiometric dating gives consistently reliable results; but creationists deny this and have offered evidence to the contrary. This hypothetical critic has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove.

    Science is a methodology outlined by Francis Bacon—who accepted Genesis as history, by the way. Real science is accurate and precise, not vague and sloppy like historical science for evolution. Bacon was aware that the creation model is useful for discovery and collecting observations that can be repeatedly tested. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. How can this be real science that demands burden of proof?

    Evolution is the biggest hoax ever claimed to be "fact", and alongside it the supporting myth of millions/billions of years. The entire world has been hoodwinked w/o any valid evidence whatsoever! This is a blasphemy to intelligence and knowledge and truth, a grave error and destructive to us all, perpetrated with ulterior motive to destroy God so man can be god. There is simply too much evidence of coordinated effort to remove God from our society, an intolerance of Christianity. The trumpets have sounded and the push back has begun.

    But let's get back to the evidence rather than circle our thinking around myths of OPINION like evolution. It's tiring chasing one's tail, and you can't go anywhere with it, or while doing it.

    We could discuss the fossil record which contains the mineralized remains of organisms that once lived on the earth. This is exactly what creationists would expect to find, since the Bible records a global Flood which destroyed virtually all life on earth, burying billions of organisms in sediments which have now turned to rock. These fossils come in distinct groups or "kinds," which are found in a somewhat organized order, consistent with the progressive order in which these organisms were buried as the Flood waters rose to higher elevations with different ecologies.

    Although there is much variation within each kind or taxonomic family, there is little if any evidence of change between those basic kinds--exactly what creationists would expect, but contrary to the natural expectations of evolutionists.

    Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step (Futuyma 1983, p. 197).

    Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.

    Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.

    There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation.. Real science involves observable, testable and repeatable testing of evidence. Anyone can repeat and observe the results; empirical science, observational science, operational science, all the same thing.

    Science cannot even make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—but let's say you can just for fun. Turn it into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot. 

    What you are looking for is empirical evidence, how we "know" something with a very high probability, by the integrity and detail of the evidence in truth of fact. 

    Empirical Evidence against evolution

    1. Watson and Crick disproved Darwinian Evolution in 1953, but some people still must believe in "mythology & folklore," because we're still discussing it, still trying to get the correct information out to dispense with an infinite number of lies that develop around the myth called evolution.

    The mechanism for Darwinian Evolution was discredited in 1953 when Watson and Cricks discovery of DNA refuted Darwin's assertion that the possible variation was infinite thereby disproving the common dissent aspect of Darwin's Model.

    2. Crick says the human genome cannot occur randomly. If life cannot occur randomly, evolution in the past is impossible. Proof enough. Even if they some day do figure out how to create life from non-life in the lab, doesn't make any difference.

    3. Evolution relies on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is empirically proven false over and over, and will remain false until it isn't. Abiogenesis violates the natural universal law of biogenesis--life comes from life, not non-life. Abiogenesis is scientifically proven false. That means evolution has no starting point and is therefore non-existent.

    4. The Natural Laws pertaining to information hold that information is immaterial and that matter cannot bring forth anything immaterial. Yet the whole of the material universe contains vast amounts of information. To assert a materialistic explanation, it is necessary to demonstrate information arising from material interactions.. When we include DNA into the mix we are talking not just information but language - including syntax and grammar and complex algorithms. Not only can science not explain this but the Natural Laws pertaining to Information assert this type of information cannot be produced by matter or material interactions.

    This is yet another line of evidence that invalidates systematic materialism..

    5. Natural selection is well established but a common tactic is to point to evidence of natural selection and assert it proves common descent.. best to clarify Common Descent so everybody is talking about the same thing.

    a. The net product of natural selection is a loss of information - the opposite of what is needed to drive common descent.

    b. Gene knockout experiments have demonstrated once a gene is knocked out the cell uses other pathways to obtain what it needs. As a result there is no basis for natural selection to preserve the mutation, and good reasons not to.

    c. Experiments and observation demonstrate most mutations are not random but are the product of guided physiological processes - once again observation and experimentation contradict the evolutionary model's claims.

    d. Genes are not central and experimental evidence has demonstrated it is not the genes but other factors that determine body types - as all the selection in the world will not produce a novel body type because body type is not mediated by the genes.

    At first the inferences used to argue evolution are almost compelling, but looking more closely they all fall through. Evolution fails because the more observations you make and the more data you gather the less viable it becomes. The point has been reached where those arguing for evolution sound more like the Greek Sophists than scientists!

    -- the Darwinist's have been comparing the genes but ignoring the organization and structure.. Looking at organization and structure they would have found that the genes for this or that protein was located on different chromosomes. Genomics is concluding that all mammals have a common compliment of proteins (and so genes coding for those proteins) but where those proteins are coded in the Genome varies from genus to genus. Building a tree of life taking into consideration where in the genome the individual proteins are coded and you have something completely different than just looking at individual genes. This is one of several reasons Genetics and genomics empirically disprove Darwinism.

    The simple fact is the more data that comes in - the less plausible Darwinism (any of it's forms) becomes. Were it not for the social and political aspects of the theory it would have been abandoned a long time ago.

    Eight Evidences for a Young Earth (outside the Bible)


    Fossil Evidence


  • Caesar
    Lv 7
    10 months ago

    The fact is that if you really want facts about a working biology theory you will ask that in Science & Mathematics/ Biology not in Society & Culture/ R&S... in layman terms here you will found some people that ignore how science work or what a scientific theory mean...

    Evolution is a scientific theory used by biologists. It explains how living things change over a long time, and how they have come to be the way they are. ... It is known that living things have changed over time because their remains can be seen in the rocks. These remains are called 'fossils'.



  • Anonymous
    10 months ago

    This place is hardly the spot to get that answer.

    Google is your friend.  So is school, go there sometime.

    It must be hard for you if you don't like the facts of science.  Evolution is just one of those facts.  Elementary school should have cleared that up for you.  Do it over.

  • 10 months ago

    Darwin was wrong.

  • 10 months ago

    Maybe you should find another source of input regarding this subject. I don't specialize in understanding the theory of evolution. Its never been within my gamut. I do have a copy of "Descent of Man" in my personal library, but it rarely gets browsed. I am sure there are plenty of other resources for you to discover for yourself why evolution is more of a valid theory than most creationist theories of human and other animal origination. 

    I will simply state, that life is a form that transforms over time, due to mutations and adaptations; under the direction of reproduction That's basically, all I know, a few scientific terms such as genetic drift, recessive and dominant genes, etc. etc, may assist in furthering your understanding. 

    You do have access to the world wide web don't you?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.