What Is Evolution?
Evolution can mean a few things. really, there are two different types of evolution; the backed up, more accepted 'micro' evolution and the more controversial, and well known 'macro' evolution. Micro Evolution is the change of DNA in a population of a species, so generally its when an organism goes through a change because it adapted to its environment. For example, its possible that giraffes used to have shorter necks (not horses, just shorter necked giraffes) because more leaves grew higher up in trees than they could reach. Macro evolution is a whole other story, otherwise known as 'speciation' this kind of evolution means the actual change from one species to another. Macro evolution is very controversial because of a few reasons.
Before I voice my own opinion, I will explain both sides of the argument. Because micro evolution has been proven and really isn't part of the conflict, we're only discussing whether or not macro evolution is true. Why people believe macro evolution has occurred and is occurring is because of four major evidences. These evidences are fossilization, comparing anatomy, comparing embryology, and molecular evidence. When studied, some fossils appear to be very alike, this similarity is also found when comparing anatomies of animals and plants, as well as how similar organisms look during the embryo stage. The most cliche comparison, but most convincing is the comparison of apes and humans. Our organs, bones, and muscles are all in almost identical locations preforming the same functions, many evolutionists have hypothesized that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor, or maybe that humans evolved from them. The forth evidence is molecular evidence. This means that under microscopic observation, scientists have found likeness between organisms, to explain, we'll bring back our chimp friend. Chimpanzees amazingly have 96% similar DNA to us humans, only a 4% difference! This discovery was found through molecular observation. Now with all this proof, you'd think that everyone would believe in macro evolution, right? Wrong. In the Christian faith as well as Catholic the followers believe in a creator. A being, God, who made all organisms as well as the universe itself. In the book of Genesis (Greek for beginning) God creates humans as well as animals, and shows them co-exist. Regardless of any evidence than may be for speciation, believer of creation still reject it. Another party that disagrees with macro evolution's credibility are those who think rationally. We can admit that because there is no actual solid evidence towards macro evolution that some scientists may be romanticizing the idea a bit, and on the other hand, the creationists are going by a book, and a god that takes up no physical form. Both evolutionists and creationists aren't completely rational when they argue their views on this theory. people who take the theory of speciation rationally seem to be quick to doubt, but sometimes it seems that they may have a point. Without the discovery of fossils of the steps a species overcame to become a new species (intermediate fossils, "the missing link") maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions. These three parties stand to be the voices of opinion when it comes to the theory of macro evolution, but what do I think?
I hope that from what I've written so far, you've seen no bias, and no hint to what side I personally take. I was born into a family of strong, active Christians, and so I leaned about creation, and God far before I heard the word 'evolution.' with that view already ingrained in my head, how is there even any hope for me (is what you're probably thinking). The interesting thing about being born into anything is how one questions oneself and what they believe in that situation. Ever since I was young I've always thought of things in a pretty back and white way despite my religion, I've tried to think rationally about everything, and then I learned of evolutionists and their evil, demented, twisted, ungodly theory. Now to be honest, I never bought evolution, at first I'm sure it was just how everyone in church talked about it, but even as I learned more about it in my science classes, and through books I read, it never really made a lot of sense, how could a monkey that sits around eating bananas and picking fleas EVER become a human who loves, hates, contemplates, and plans. How something so (despite its similarities to humans) unintelligent and uncivilized and smelly become something so great? Of course, just asking questions isn't any way to combat a society, so I had to make a statement of my opinion. I decided to believe that what the Bible says about animals and humans being made at the same time, not slowly evolved from another species, but that wasn't my only reason. my pure disbelief and the lack of solid evidence for the theory was the clincher. really, as much as people hate the Bible and try to argue against it, there has been findings of documents written about Jesus and his work that line up directly with the writings in the Bible. Not only that but rewind a few thousand years and you've got Moses, the Bible says that with God's power, he parted the Red Sea (a sea in Israel) so that he and his people could walk across to escape the Egyptians that enslaved them and chased them, only to be crushed by the return of the water after Moses and the Hebrews had crossed. now if that isn't a far-fetched story what is? only this one has some solid evidence. During an undersea expedition of the Red Sea, chariot wheels were found practically in the middle of it. These wheels not only were found in a convenient place, where it would be impossible unless the sea really parted, but were dated back to the time the story happened in the Bible. So really, the Bible and the Christian faith actually have more (because evolution has none) solid evidence than evolution. So in conclusion, my opinion on macro evolution is that it's just too far fetched and improbable for me to believe.
Before I voice my own opinion, I will explain both sides of the argument. Because micro evolution has been proven and really isn't part of the conflict, we're only discussing whether or not macro evolution is true. Why people believe macro evolution has occurred and is occurring is because of four major evidences. These evidences are fossilization, comparing anatomy, comparing embryology, and molecular evidence. When studied, some fossils appear to be very alike, this similarity is also found when comparing anatomies of animals and plants, as well as how similar organisms look during the embryo stage. The most cliche comparison, but most convincing is the comparison of apes and humans. Our organs, bones, and muscles are all in almost identical locations preforming the same functions, many evolutionists have hypothesized that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor, or maybe that humans evolved from them. The forth evidence is molecular evidence. This means that under microscopic observation, scientists have found likeness between organisms, to explain, we'll bring back our chimp friend. Chimpanzees amazingly have 96% similar DNA to us humans, only a 4% difference! This discovery was found through molecular observation. Now with all this proof, you'd think that everyone would believe in macro evolution, right? Wrong. In the Christian faith as well as Catholic the followers believe in a creator. A being, God, who made all organisms as well as the universe itself. In the book of Genesis (Greek for beginning) God creates humans as well as animals, and shows them co-exist. Regardless of any evidence than may be for speciation, believer of creation still reject it. Another party that disagrees with macro evolution's credibility are those who think rationally. We can admit that because there is no actual solid evidence towards macro evolution that some scientists may be romanticizing the idea a bit, and on the other hand, the creationists are going by a book, and a god that takes up no physical form. Both evolutionists and creationists aren't completely rational when they argue their views on this theory. people who take the theory of speciation rationally seem to be quick to doubt, but sometimes it seems that they may have a point. Without the discovery of fossils of the steps a species overcame to become a new species (intermediate fossils, "the missing link") maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions. These three parties stand to be the voices of opinion when it comes to the theory of macro evolution, but what do I think?
I hope that from what I've written so far, you've seen no bias, and no hint to what side I personally take. I was born into a family of strong, active Christians, and so I leaned about creation, and God far before I heard the word 'evolution.' with that view already ingrained in my head, how is there even any hope for me (is what you're probably thinking). The interesting thing about being born into anything is how one questions oneself and what they believe in that situation. Ever since I was young I've always thought of things in a pretty back and white way despite my religion, I've tried to think rationally about everything, and then I learned of evolutionists and their evil, demented, twisted, ungodly theory. Now to be honest, I never bought evolution, at first I'm sure it was just how everyone in church talked about it, but even as I learned more about it in my science classes, and through books I read, it never really made a lot of sense, how could a monkey that sits around eating bananas and picking fleas EVER become a human who loves, hates, contemplates, and plans. How something so (despite its similarities to humans) unintelligent and uncivilized and smelly become something so great? Of course, just asking questions isn't any way to combat a society, so I had to make a statement of my opinion. I decided to believe that what the Bible says about animals and humans being made at the same time, not slowly evolved from another species, but that wasn't my only reason. my pure disbelief and the lack of solid evidence for the theory was the clincher. really, as much as people hate the Bible and try to argue against it, there has been findings of documents written about Jesus and his work that line up directly with the writings in the Bible. Not only that but rewind a few thousand years and you've got Moses, the Bible says that with God's power, he parted the Red Sea (a sea in Israel) so that he and his people could walk across to escape the Egyptians that enslaved them and chased them, only to be crushed by the return of the water after Moses and the Hebrews had crossed. now if that isn't a far-fetched story what is? only this one has some solid evidence. During an undersea expedition of the Red Sea, chariot wheels were found practically in the middle of it. These wheels not only were found in a convenient place, where it would be impossible unless the sea really parted, but were dated back to the time the story happened in the Bible. So really, the Bible and the Christian faith actually have more (because evolution has none) solid evidence than evolution. So in conclusion, my opinion on macro evolution is that it's just too far fetched and improbable for me to believe.