Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: rossacus
They evolved from dinosaurs.

"mythical" dragons throughout history were the people describing dinosaurs. Dinosaur wasnt a word until 1850, so any description prior to that date would call a large lizard a "dragon". There's a ton of pre-historic and historic art accurately depicting dinosaurs:

Historical Dinosaur Art

and there's also a plethora of written accounts too: Historical Descriptions of Dragons

a reply to: Barcs

I have never stated that a flower is not a plant ... you did that
I stated that a daisy is not a rose

originally posted by: artistpoet
A Human

A Ape

Well this explains a whole lot. You don't have any idea what an Ape actually is. Your too photo is indeed a human. The bottom photo is of a gorilla. Both gorillas and humans(along with chimpanzee, bonobo and orangutan) are apes. Just like a daisy isn't a rose but both are flowers.

a reply to: peter vlar

OK ... a Gorilla is a Gorilla and a Man a man
You may lump different animals together in categories but they are not the same

A daisy is a flower of course and so too a rose is a flower
But a daisy is not rose and a rose is not a daisy

My description is specific whilst yours is category which is generalisation

a reply to: artistpoet
Hominidae

Aves

See the similarities in each family?... yet each is a different species.

How about...

Snake or Lizard?

Snake or Lizard?


Skinks share a common ancestor with both snakes and lizards... you can tell right?

Again... if not evolution... then fitting all the evidence, what else?

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: peter vlar

OK ... a Gorilla is a Gorilla and a Man a man
You may lump different animals together in categories but they are not the same

A daisy is a flower of course and so too a rose is a flower
But a daisy is not rose and a rose is not a daisy

My description is specific whilst yours is category which is generalisation

Are you being this obtuse purposefully? If you can agree that a rose and a daisy are both flowers, why can you not grasp that a man, a gorilla, a chimpanzee, a bonobo and an orangutan are all apes? It's no more of a generalization when someone attempts to demonstrate proper context to you than when you say a daisy is a flower and a rise is a flower but a daisy is not a rose. Your inability or refusal to understand taxonomy doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

You have proved my point if you did but know by posting examples of different creatures that are unique to themselves
As are Humans
Now if we want to sub divide into categories let us look at Humans
No two are exactly the same yet we recognise them as Humans and no other animal

Yet you are sub dividing even further and the conclusion can only be that all are forms of life which they are and each is unique unto it's own kind ... no two of anything are exactly the same in that sense

a reply to: peter vlar

Ape may be a category into which a Human falls
Yet they are not the same
What point are you trying to prove regarding category?

a reply to: artistpoet

Yet you ignored the transitional form of the certain species of skink I posted, and the question at the end... if not evolution, then what?

You're just proving yourself to be, uneducated, stubborn and ignorant.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Yet you ignored the transitional form of the certain species of skink I posted, and the question at the end... if not evolution, then what?

Transitional form? No a different creature that looks like a snake or lizard
A skink is a skink

You're just proving yourself to be, uneducated, stubborn and ignorant.

It is easy to cast accusations which are merely assumptions
You mean I do not agree with you

originally posted by: Cypress
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

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

Cypress: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.

Because of what and how (to your mind) you determined is an unreasonable question posed? You should have clicked on the 'alert' icon and let the mods know your thoughts regarding the viability of the opening statement content. You are 15 pages too late to say this thread is a potential troll effort.

a reply to: artistpoet

No, I don't care whether you agree with me... I care that you ignore facts, and then claim that you think you know what you are talking about... disagreements are great, and lead to discussion... Ignorance makes you seem incapable of learning.

I mean you are uneducated because you really haven't learnt exactly what evolution is and all of the scientific facts that confirm it.

Stubborn because regardless of the evidence being presented to you, you refuse to let your preconceived incorrect notions shift to known facts.

And ignorant because that is what you are doing... ignoring evidence in favour of fallacies because of outdated ideologies that you have been indoctrinated into. If you can't see that those images of the skink are somewhere between a classic snake and a classic lizard, then you are being ignorant.

You also don't know the significance of one of the images I posted.

Here:
news.nationalgeographic.com...

originally posted by: Vector99
Here

Vector99: is more proof but no, it's not evolution because they are still lizards, they didn't turn into dolphins.

Why is it only the 'human' evolved? and did so in only 3.4 million years if you recognize "Lucy" to be the breakout bi-pedal hominid. The 350 million year old shark specie should rule the planet.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: peter vlar

Ape may be a category into which a Human falls
Yet they are not the same
What point are you trying to prove regarding category?

Let's try to simplify this a little bit then.

1. What do YOU think an ape is?

2. What are the differences and similarities between humans and apes.

3. When you say they are not the same, what exactly do you mean? Because if a human is one of the Great Apes, I'm not following you when you claim they are not.

a reply to: peter vlar
The next time King Kong hires me you will be the first to know.

a reply to: artistpoet

You also ignored my question again... can't answer it?

If not evolution... then what?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

At least there's a consensus here where none of you seem to know the differences in the appropriate taxonomy. Carry on then...

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Why is it only the 'human' evolved? and did so in only 3.4 million years if you recognize "Lucy" to be the breakout bi-pedal hominid. The 350 million year old shark specie should rule the planet.

Where exactly do you come up with only humans or hominids evolved? It simply isn't the case. Lucy wasn't even the first bipedal hominid, Ardipithecus Ramidus, while not fully bipedal like A. Afarensis, was still fully capable of bipedalism and is more representative of a transitional form from our more chimpanzee like ancestry whereas A. Afarensis had a gait, foot and walking style nearly indistinguishable from our own as evidenced by the Laetoli Footprints. Your timeline is a little off though as "our" lineage diverged from the lineage that gave rise to Chimpanzee and then Bonobo at least 8MA so more than double your timeline based on Lucy( who wasn't even the first Australopithecine species either). Take it back another step further and primates have been evolving their way towards what we see today for at least 55 MA and possibly as long as 70-75MA. It's not nearly as simple as the arbitrary line you are drawing in the sand with a question mark next to it.

I think it's fair to say that in their own ecological niche, the more aggressive Sharks do in fact rule their domain. We would not and do not fair very well in their territory judging by the increasing number of surfers who lose limbs. Nor will they do very well on land. You make it sound like evolution has a goal or an end game it is trying to achieve. It's only goal is in preserving and passing on genetic codes. There is no such thing as more evolved or less evolved or devolution for that matter

a reply to: artistpoet

No I think he is right. You can't even fathom what evolution is and can't grasp what people are saying.
As usual the people who don't believe in evolution do not even understand it or have been tainted by some old book.

This is another fail thread as all the others are.
They ask for evidence people show them tons of evidence, they don't accept it without even attempting to dismiss it through factual evidence just WAAAAAA! nope!.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Vector99
Here

Vector99: is more proof but no, it's not evolution because they are still lizards, they didn't turn into dolphins.

Why is it only the 'human' evolved? and did so in only 3.4 million years if you recognize "Lucy" to be the breakout bi-pedal hominid. The 350 million year old shark specie should rule the planet.

Different evolutionary paths? Sharks have pretty much always ruled the ocean, I watched shark-nado, but realistically no, not gonna ever happen. Dolphins maybe, but no way sharks. Most species seem set in place now, but my example is a perfect example of proven evolution. Ancient Earth was a much different climate/atmospheric makeup than today, and as seen with the lizards evolution through adaptation can happen quite rapidly with environmental changes.