look up any word, like guncle:
 
1.
The evolution theory states that all life is subject to evolution and that humans evolved from animals and have an ape ancestor. Speciation, genetic variation, genetic drift, natural selection and other mechanisms (also well explained by Mendalian Inheritance) are all observable and part of micro-evolution which is irrefutable. The problems comes with macro-evolution and its current model which, although accurate in some parts, has some serious flaws. There is a severe lack of transitional fossils showing how species gradually evolve into other species asides from a few fossils forms showing species in a half way point such as the Archaeopteryx (a wing feathered dinosaur) but evolution neither addresses nor explains how and why certain mechanisms are the way they are. There's no evidence found so far about explaining how the first creatures inherited the genetic make-up to evolve wings in the first place since this wouldn't have been in their DNA. It doesn't explain how new resources such as new organs suddenly emerged into the creatures that came from the sea. See "Evolutionary developmental biology and the problem of variation" and "Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem" for more holes in the current evolutionary model.
Meanwhile mutations mostly are never inherited by the offspring and if they are, there is always a chance that their offspring will not inherit the same mutation meaning that mutation alone cannot produce such an evolution. To anyone who isn't an religious darwinist (literally a religious atheist who constantly talks about evolution and won't hear any criticism against it or its current model) it's clear that there's flaws in evolution that need addressing. But macro-evolution (especially in humans) sometimes seems undeniably correct when you observe human behavior and how it matches animal behaviour.

The atheistic naturalist evolution is incorrect for using the evidenceless hypothesis of abiogenesis to explain the origin of life.

Evolution theory as explained above. Contrary to atheist nuts, it doesn't debunk God and is just another example of a natural functioning system at work in the natural world which most logical people will deduct could only proceed from an intelligent mind as nothingness and chaos cannot produce anything at all.
by Thereovernothere632 January 11, 2014
 
2.
The evolution theory states that all life is subject to evolution and that humans evolved from animals and have an ape ancestor. Speciation, genetic variation, genetic drift, natural selection and other mechanisms (also well explained by Mendalian Inheritance) are all observable and part of micro-evolution which is irrefutable. The problems comes with macro-evolution and its current model which, although accurate in some parts, has some serious flaws. There is a severe lack of transitional fossils showing how species gradually evolve into other species asides from a few fossils forms showing species in a half way point such as the Archaeopteryx (a wing feathered dinosaur) but evolution neither addresses nor explains how and why certain mechanisms are the way they are. There's no evidence found so far about explaining how the first creatures inherited the genetic make-up to evolve wings in the first place since this wouldn't have been in their DNA. It doesn't explain how new resources such as new organs suddenly emerged into the creatures that came from the sea. See "Evolutionary developmental biology and the problem of variation" and "Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem" for more holes in the current evolutionary model.
Meanwhile mutations mostly are never inherited by the offspring and if they are, there is always a chance that their offspring will not inherit the same mutation meaning that mutation alone cannot produce such an evolution. To anyone who isn't an religious darwinist (literally a religious atheist who constantly talks about evolution and won't hear any criticism against it or its current model) it's clear that there's flaws in evolution that need addressing. But macro-evolution (especially in humans) sometimes seems undeniably correct when you observe human behavior and how it matches animal behavior.

It becomes clear that the atheistic naturalist evolution just can't be possible especially since it requires the abiogenesis hypothesis to be correct. Abiogenesis remains evidenceless and is pretty much a myth.

Evolution theory as explained above. Contrary to atheist nuts, it doesn't debunk God and is just another example of a natural functioning system at work in the natural world which most logical people will deduct could only proceed from an intelligent mind as nothingness and chaos cannot produce anything at all.
by Scientificlightdiscovery January 10, 2014