Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

You actually mean "Taxidermist" purposes; micro meaning fibers to fur ratio and macro meaning the more points (on the antler; say 25) the better. This would be a huge creature deer, antelope, elk.

No I mean taxonomy...the classification system of organisms. The terms micro and macro evolution only apply to this concept. They are not separate processes as the creationist crowd proclaims.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I am certain the Origin of a thread or "OP" cannot or is in any way allowed to troll itself.

When you post the same garbage and continue to post the same types of threads without presenting any new arguments or evidence to support your point of view while hoping to encite back and forth with the community, it is trolling the forum.

Most of 21st century science can only be understood at the college level, unfortunately. However, the information is right at your fingertips, on the web. Educate yourself.
a reply to: TinfoilTP

a reply to: Cypress

don't mean to drive by BUT I had stumbled upon this image at Imgur the other day. Apparently it's a text book teaching evolution in Morocco

originally posted by: Parthin96
Most of 21st century science can only be understood at the college level, unfortunately. However, the information is right at your fingertips, on the web. Educate yourself.
a reply to: TinfoilTP

First explain the point of that futility.

How would delving into 21st century science at the university level enlighten one as to their predetermined evolutionary destiny?

When sperm met egg, the potential was set.

Is the University the environmental influence needed to accept evolution?
Is the Web a last ditch alternative?

Why shouldn't I just sit back and hope for a mutation so my offspring have a better chance than I did?

If I peek at the Bible am I expressing my flawed genetics? Should I sign up for euthanasia ASAP?

All the dogs.......wait for it.......are still dogs.
The potential of their traits were expressed according to varying environmental factors and mutations.

When a dog turns into an animal that is not a dog, then you will have something, until then it's all smoke and mirrors.

Genetic makeup is the common denominator regardless whether we are talking dog breeds or differences in species. Same process.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
So your ignorance want proof of a certain type of evolution. No problem. How do you think birds came to be? Huh? They evolved from dinosaurs. (Assuming you believe in the existence of fossils that is). They have the same follow bone structure to increase blood circulation through respiration. A unique body structure. They genetically manipulated dorment genes in a chicken to produce teeth and scales in the the egg, highlighting it's evolution from dinosaur to bird. If that is not proof for the question you constantly keep asking (for some reason) then there is no hope for you and God doesn't even want you.

Come on guys how many times do we have to go over the same stuff?.
The op and other deniers will never accept evolution because their tiny minds can not understand nor comprehend evolution.
Ignore their inane babbling.

Here is more proof but no, it's not evolution because they are still lizards, they didn't turn into dolphins.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I never said I didn't understand, I understand it completely.

Every post you've made in this thread indicates otherwise.

Just because I think it is a bunch of hogwash doesn't mean I don't understand.

Your disagreeing with modern evolutionary synthesis isn't why it's obvious that you don't even understand the basics. The way you completely misrepresent even the simplest concepts in evolution is why it's obvious that you don't even understand the basics.

That's the problem with evolutionist, for some reason if you don't believe their theory then by default your some kind of idiot.

No, I've seen plenty of people on ATS argue against modern evolutionary synthesis as a whole or parts of it in an intelligent fashion. Except they don't just sit there and say that it doesn't seem like "common sense" or that it doesn't seem "logical" to them. They actually present some evidence that they feel runs counter to the theory or a facet of theory. See chr0naut for a perfect example of someone like that.

Sure, if I wanted to I could have been posting tons of stuff from people who debunk this theory both Christian and Non-Christian. But I like to provide my own answers with simple logic, evolutionist like to post long thesis and then expect you answer every single question in it.

So your defense is that it doesn't make "common sense" to you, but you don't have the interest or attention span to actually read the evidence that supports it?

I don't have time for that. As my signature says:

If you cant explain it simply then you dont understand it well enough-- Albert Einstein

Except that you have to understand something in the first place in order to simplify it correctly. You have yet to show you can do so.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: amazing

The competing theory is not a theory but logic. If it is logical for you to believe that you and your ancestors came from a bowl of soup then turned into apes and then turned into humans what more can I say other than your logic is flawed.

/But what is logical? I can believe that God created us, but it is illogical to believe in the biblical Adam and Eve of the bible. And it does appear that life evolves and has evolved. You should be able to summarize your views in a few sentences. where did modern humans come from, if not evolution?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I didn't ignore it, I actually did read it. I can tell you it's the same ol crap as all the rest. Nothing but a long drawn out thesis which still doesn't state any hardcore facts.

Please give examples of the evidence that I listed in my link that IS NOT backed by hard evidence. You are just denying it, you aren't addressing any of it. Why? Lab results don't count as facts? Intermediary species don't count as facts? Why do you refuse to address any of it?

Riddle me this. You say that natural selection chooses what lives and what dies. How is this done? And how does natural selection know which one to chose?

Once again, if you refuse to learn the very basics of a theory before attacking it, how can you expect anybody to take you seriously? Do you really not understand how environments change and favor certain traits over others. You immediately took my statement to mean literal hand even though I put it in quotes. Nobody selects anything. The environment changes, creatures that are built for it survive, others do not. Then later down the road it changes again. Creatures migrate, certain species go extinct because they were once favored by the environment but now they are not. Is this making sense yet?

Is this picture true or false?

Is this really how man evolved according to evolution?

LMAO. That's an extremely simplified summary, but it is WAY more detailed and complicated that that. Do you only argue against pictures or are you going to address my evidence instead of pretending it wasn't posted?

The bottom line to the theory or should I fact as some would have it, is that man evolved from a bowl of soup.

That is not even close to the bottom line of the theory. Bowl of soup? No wonder you fail to understand the basic fundamentals of science. Evolution has zero to do with soup or abiogenesis. Why do you constantly parrot false ideas? Why are you afraid to do the research?

At the end of the day evolution is nothing more but an idea disguised as fact.

At the end of the day you have proven yourself dishonest and willfully ignorant. You asked for evidence of evolution. It was provided and you haven't addressed a single point out of all of it. You just pretend it wasn't post or dismiss it without reason, using fallacies and leaps of logic. Are you going to address the evidence we posted? Or are you going to just sit on your high horse talking down to anybody that understands it as if you have this uber secret understanding of evolution and you know more than scientists that work in the field?

It's a joke. You are the equivalent of a backseat driver that never learned how to drive. You just sit there and criticize somebody else's driving from the back seat, when you've never even sat behind the wheel. You are pretty much a 5th grader who just learned basic math trying to debunk calculus. Things don't work like that. If you wish to argue against something, you need to first understand it, and you clearly do not and won't even attempt.

Because they're afraid to teach evolution in grade school, so they don't. The actual mechanism of evolution occurs at the atomic level, and some understanding of advanced chemistry is needed to understand that. But you can get a decent overview of the whole thing just by doing some reading. Guess what? I've read the Bible, too. Somehow, God and I do just fine without a literal interpretation of a Sumerian myth.
a reply to: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: artistpoet
I am saying Man is man and an ape is ape
If you look at a Man you will see a Man not an ape
If you look at an ape you will see an ape not Man
We may have similarities be we are not the same species

Actually when you look at a man, you do see an ape because humans are in the ape family. That's like saying if you look at a flower you aren't looking at a plant. I never claimed they were the same species. They are the same FAMILY, but different genus and different species. It's still a fact. Humans are apes. Ape is not a species. Humans aren't all the same species either. You may want to brush up on your classifications, because you are pretty much abusing terminology you don't understand to make a faulty connection.

Humans are in the Hominidae family, the same family as chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, etc. This is the great ape family, so yes, technically humans are apes.

So you believe a scientist you have never met that said some apes are Men
Classification is not sameness it is variety
Man is man and ape is ape

Your argument is lazy and says nothing. OMG snakes are snakes and reptiles are reptiles. I guess snakes can't be reptiles then, right?

Sameness? I never said they were the same, but being in the same family makes them more closely related than they are to other mammals, based on the DNA matching near 98%. Those are the facts. Do you have an argument or are you just going to repeat 3rd grade style analogies that essentially say nothing?

And yeah, I get my scientific information from scientific research and scientists. How silly right? It makes way more sense to get science info from a priest or used car salesman.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

As for proof of evolution I don't believe there is direct proof, as your looking for, but many have Faith.

Not according to all the evolution guru's on this site, according to them there's tons of it, but for some reason we still haven't seen any.

Actually there are tons of evidence. You just need to go to a museum and see dinossaur fossils or see picutres from animal embryos.

Or you can pick a trip to a paleontological site and pick a piece of billion years old air trapped inside a rock. Science has done more to us than religion in a pretty long time, if it doesn't try to give awnsers to old quesitions, than science can content ourselfs with things like internet.

a reply to: Barcs

It's still a fact. Humans are apes.

A Human is a Human and an ape is an ape
Show me an ape that is a Human
An ape may be categorised by scientists as the same family as a Human but it is not a Human

Apes may be more closely related to Humans but they are not one another

Show me where my statements are incorrect

A Human



A Ape

a reply to: artistpoet

Stop trolling, you don't have the foggiest about what you are talking about.

1. There is no such species as ape.

2. We are the species homo sapien, who belong to the great ape family.

3. The term "human" can cover a wide variety of species in the homo genus from habilis to erectus to hiedlebergensis to sapiens.

4. Nobody ever claimed humans and chimpanzees or other great ape species are the same species. Just that we share a more recent common ancestor than we do with other animals.

en.wikipedia.org...

Humans are apes.

simple.wikipedia.org...

More information about classification of organisms, since you are having some trouble grasping this. If you don't like the way they are classified, then that's too bad. Humans belong to the ape family, therefor they are technically apes as well. Read about it, educate yourself.

A flower:



A plant:



Oh wow a flower is totally not a plant!

a reply to: Barcs

When all else fails call any who challenge you a troll

Show me where my statements are incorrect if you can

Or if you like show me any evidence of how an ape became a man in the common understanding of these two different animals.

Again an ape will always be an ape and a man a man
There are similarities which can be classified but classification does not mean they are the same