Evolution or Creationism

In the 20th century, a guy name Charles Darwin boarded a ship named the Beagle sailed around the world. Charles Darwin stopped at the Galapagos Islands and saw that each finch their had different beaks and he studied it more closely, he noticed that the beaks were adapted to the types of food. This along with many other studies shows that evolution is possible. If you say that their is no proof, than you argue with thousands of scientists of the last century, modern scientist, and most of all modernity. The technology we have today, the ideology we believe in, it was all because of modernity. If you don't believe in evolution, than you are clearly a traditionalist. From, their, I can't argue because modernity and traditionalism (alongside fundamentalist) are different ideology and I can't force you to believe in my ideas. Off topic, but on to my refutes. On your argument that earth is perfect. According to NASA, earth did shift, and yet we are still here. The bi product is the Sahara desert in Africa. So your argument is void, earth is not stay in the same orbit. For temperature, the earth as a thin layer of ozone, therefore, making living possible. Lastly, A huge bang, took years, decades probably in order to form planets, and who say's earth is perfect. If it was perfect, it will be flat, the temperature would still be cool, and all these natural disasters wouldn't be happening. Therefore, Earth is not perfect. Like I said, the temperature made life possible, cells appeared like how bacteria appears when the temp is right. Therefore, when cells appeared, they were possibly grouped together to form cell colonies. Later, The cell colonies started to form organs, and------etc Won't continue, the human body takes weeks to explain, not in two days. Lastly, for the wing stub, this was through the work of genetic mutation they keep the favorable genes, and destroy the useless ones, or keep it but with no use. Now I have one question for you. Why do you think that the brain is because of creationism, the brain, has been formed billions of years ago, and through genetic mutations, it got better, improved to have humans to adapt. And like I said, billions of years to start forming, don't you think that was enough time? ARTICLE FROM FORBES Michael Egnor is a neurosurgeon at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. In an article on this site, "A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist," he claims that the theory of evolution is bogus. After studying Darwinism, Egnor apparently discovered that "claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence." Indeed, he says, the only way complex biological systems such as biochemical pathways could have arisen is via direct divine intervention. Egnor concludes that "Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science"""atheism"s creation myth." While Egnor"s misguided attack on evolution tells us nothing about the truth of Darwinism, it does prove one thing: Doctors aren"t necessarily scientists. Some, like Egnor, seem completely unable to evaluate evidence. Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century? Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton"s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton"s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago. Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time. The tenets of evolutionary theory are simple: Life evolved, largely under the influence of natural selection; this evolution took a rather long time; and species alive and dead can be organized on the basis of shared similarities into a tree whose branching pattern implies that every pair of living species has a common ancestor. Among genuine scientists, there is not the slightest doubt about the truth of these ideas. In contrast to Egnor"s claim, the evidence for all of them is not only strong but copious"so much so that evolution has graduated from a scientific theory to a scientific fact. Let"s examine Egnor"s main criticism of evolutionary theory. "The fossil record," he writes, "shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts." This is sheer nonsense. As all biologists know, we have many examples not only of gradual change within species but also of "transitional forms" between very different kinds of species. These include fossil links between fish and amphibians, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals and, of course, the famous fossils linking apelike creatures with our own species, Homo sapiens. Does Egnor not know this, or is he simply trying to mislead the reader? Another specious claim is his assertion that "Darwin"s theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components." Nonsense"even the complicated pathway of blood clotting (an example much favored by creationists) is the subject of coherent, evidenced-based explanations. Egnor also declares that "intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it"s difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations." He is right here: such complex adaptations could not have arisen under the power of random mutation alone. What he seems to have forgotten is the process of natural selection, which filters those mutations, preserving the good ones and eliminating the bad ones. It is the combination of mutation and the selection filter that produces the extraordinary instances of adaptation we can document in nature. Bacteria, for example, evolved brand-new enzymes to break down nylon"an artificial polymer that was never encountered by bacteria before 1930. How does Egnor account for the natural world? He does not, in fact, offer a scientific theory. Rather, he subscribes to the creationist view that complex things, which are difficult to explain, are the domain of God. If we don"t understand something, there"s no point trying to understand it"we should just throw up our hands and say, "God did it." Imagine what would have happened if, over the history of science, we imputed to God"s hand everything we didn"t understand. We would never have cured the plague, which"like most diseases and disasters"was once thought to reflect God"s anger rather than bacteria-carrying fleas. "Barrenness" in women was thought to reflect divine displeasure; it is now treated effectively by scientific means, not by propitiating the gods. There are no observations in nature that refute Darwinism, but there are plenty that refute Egnor"s creationist alternative. How does he explain the persistence of "dead genes" in species (like our own broken one for making vitamin C)"genes that were functional in our ancestors? What explains those annoying hominin fossils that span the gap from early apelike creatures to modern humans? Why do human fetuses produce a coat of hair after six months in the womb, and then shed it before birth? Why didn"t the creator stock oceanic islands with mammals, reptiles and amphibians? Why did He give us vestigial ear muscles that have no function? Why do whales occasionally sprout hind legs? Did God design all creatures to fool us into thinking that they evolved? In the End, this article proves that why creationism might not be real. Vote For the Modern Side BTW, arguments that have been proven wrong will not work, and so will the ones that contradict common sense will nott work either VOTE FOR ME FOR MODERNITY