Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: spygeek
Of course not, for it to become a new species of bacteria would require it's isolated development and observation over a period beyond our current capability.

If we can never observe it happen then how can honestly say that is how it was done?

Not only is it necessary for it to happen for life as we know it to exist, and evidence of it happening throughout history is found all over the world, but also if you extrapolate observed evolution over a long timeline, it becomes inevitable..

This whole idea of one species changing into another is just hogwash, how we can take this stuff seriously without a shred of evidence? Just because some animals look the same as others does not mean they must have evolved from each other, but that seems to be the main evidence for evolution.

There is a lot more to evolution than species looking alike.. Mathematics and physics, biology and chemistry affirm it. If two species share a percentage of genetic material, they can be shown to be related.

You might as well say the pyramids were built by aliens because we didn't observe it, even tough we have demonstrated and observed how they could have been built by humans.

Scientific analysis, Occam's razor, and commons sense agree with evolution. In the absence of a theory that works better, it's the most correct we have.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Forget the bacteria. This is what the OP desires and is de facto evolution.

Hm, you know Darwin discovered that several bird species on the Galapagos evolved from a common ancestor. There is a mosquito in the British subway tunnels that has evolved into a new species, snakes having vestigial leg bones, etc, etc.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: vethumanbeing

That would more or less have to do with history I suppose, and just their clashing of views. It more like asking why don't the Christians get along with the Muslums unite as one when battling evil, when Satans going to devour them all.

Seems to be pattern that duplicates itself (for fun and hijinks) that seem always to have deadly outcomes. Forget about the Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam...the bigger Evil Fish as you say will eat them all anyway despite whomevers dogma is more correct. It doesn't care; it just wants the negative energy derived from each in their polarities and there seems to plenty of that available, ISIS is the frosting on Islam's desert.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Aye, to be the Moby Dick of the seas.

All hail the Killer Whales!!!

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Aye, to be the Moby Dick of the seas.
All hail the Killer Whales!!!

"Blackfish" Save Tillicum the Killer Whale and his potential new human victims that the intelligent humans trained him into dispatching 'randomly' out of frustration. Whales as Mammals have evolved from something that were of the land or visa versa?. Some say the pig evolved from the whale, a walking version of or the whale was a pig that learned to swim: "Andrewsarkus" sp, is the name of the specie that connects them. I think God figured this out: create a pig (fat/bacon and flesh) somehow so that the human doesn't destroy the oceans ecosystems by killing off all of the whales. I had no idea groupers could grow so large, Liam Neeson narrowly escaped death in this StarWars movie.

You want evidence? Look at the fossil record. Evidence is not proof, evidence is information that points toward a possibility. Proof is information that proves a possibility beyond a shadow of a doubt. It seems as though creationists confuse the two terms quite often.

What evidence is there of creationism? A book written thousands of years ago. What evidence is there of evolution? Thousands upon thousands of fossils that point toward transitionary characteristics. What proof is there of either? None.

Put the two groups of evidence on a scale and see which side is heavier. Evolution wins hands down.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I never saw God create a new species either, guess we can rule out creationism.

You cannot have proof.

So let me get this straight. Basically your saying, it's ok to believe in evolution with no proof, but if someone believes in some form of God without proof then that person is some kind of loony toon?

Yep. Hit the nail right on the head.

I equate it to rain falling from the sky.

If I had no understanding of science, it is magical. People, before they understood the science, believed it was supernatural. Sacrifices to appease the gods to let it rain.. That's belief in god. An imaginary sky wizard with a huge watering can only making it rain if you're nice.

Now I know about the water cycle. It had to be a theory first, before it could be tested and ultimately proven.

With evolution, the science provides a hypothesis that so far fits with everything we see around us.

I'm not going to believe in a magical sky being who did everything in a week and then said "Crikey I'm knackered.. I'll make it a law that no one works on Sundays. Yay me." and then said 'Blimey they all went south, I'll start again! After I make them get 2 of every animal, except dinosaurs and everything on the Galapagos islands..".. in fact, why would a god with the power to create everything, need his wicked man to save 2 of each animal? Why not just "pew pew" and make new ones after he's killed everything?

God is what people use when they have no answer for the unknown world around them...

either that, or he did create it all, and he is an evil monster of a deity that enjoys watching his creation suffer.

I like science much better, it's only intention is truth.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You want evidence? Look at the fossil record. Evidence is not proof, evidence is information that points toward a possibility. Proof is information that proves a possibility beyond a shadow of a doubt. It seems as though creationists confuse the two terms quite often.

What evidence is there of creationism? A book written thousands of years ago. What evidence is there of evolution? Thousands upon thousands of fossils that point toward transitionary characteristics. What proof is there of either? None.

Put the two groups of evidence on a scale and see which side is heavier. Evolution wins hands down.

Nope. The nature of our DNA (you must understand what a miracle this is) is not happenstance/accidental. This could never have evolved naturally. Oak trees die off as soul groups and are at the bottom tier of base awareness; just above rocks/mineral elements. There was a hand in all of this and it was not natural selection. Lucy was found; a 3.2 million years ago breathing relic then; and was not near being as 'evolved' as the Neanderthal or the next being Cro-Magnum. The swiftness of the progression cannot be evolution. Why did the Simians (living beside us) not evolve at the same pace as a different branch of hominids? We as modern humans shouldn't EXIST AT ALL for another 10 million years. You don't see the beauty of the human body; how it functions. It is a universe self contained that is so perfect in function and it actually has consciousness; and knows what it is and understands a higher being has to exist to have created this perfection. Coded DNA strands are so complicated as not to be accidental happenstance. The beauty of this human form/function suggests a higher thought/creator being exists.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Are you saying you are incapable of reading what I posted, seems pretty straightforward to me, what part do you not comprehend? Common sense is necessary to understand.

Did I stutter?

So instead of answering the question you want to get snotty, ok. Common sense would tell you that this thread is about Evolution, you know, the kind that many claim is the proof of man coming from apes. Or are you confused by the title?

There is your entire problem, the same stupid problem all the other OP's of this sort of topic have.

The theory of evolution is not proof. Never claimed to be.

Thank you for allowing us to educate you on this matter.. Also, we never evolved from apes.. jfc..

My bad, you have overwhelming evidence right? If we didn't come from apes then were did we come from? Let me guess, a common ancestor right? And who is that ancestor and what did they evolve from?

I have no idea why you even posted this. What overwhelming evidence? The theory does not say we evolved from apes. That is a falsehood continually used to argue this time and time again...

No chickens didn't evolve from a t-rex either.

Evolution is a SLOW process. What is it about this you don't want to or cannot grasp? it takes millions of years for mutations to become distinct. That is why places like the galapagos islands, which were so isolated that they evolved separately from the majority of the rest of the world, from the same origin species.

We see in there adaptations to their environment that we do not see in other animals with common lineage.

We didn't just one day wake up and go "Oh right, I can walk upright now!! lets get onto making this wheel thing. I hear it's all the rage." and don a bear skin, wield a club and bang his mate on the head to initiate relations.

Millions of years, different mutations. We shared a common ancestor. Hell, you want me to take that to an extreme?

We evolved from chemical reactions in the primordial soup.

Billions of years of subtle changes and we have this amazing world around us. yet rather than be in awe at the magnificence of it all, you give credit to something that has only the word of primitive, barbaric and scared peoples.. who relied on fear of the afterlife to get the populace to obey...

Im sad, to be honest. that in 2015. people still believe in this...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

You can refute something that has a scientific theory.

People like to play the "it is not proven" game but that isn't what science is there for. It is to expain ans currently evolution is the best possible explanation. What would yours be?

I always thought that science was the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. If evolution is only the best possibleexplanation then that wouldn't be science would it? In other words it's the best idea that they have. But idea's and explanations are not evidence or proof are they?

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

It's more believable than a magic man in the sky...

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

And they did experiment and observer it.
It has already been shown to you.

Their explanations are not just ideas, that is your problem. You choose to simplify things to much to a point where you can distort what is being said.
en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.[4][5]

And then they leave the possibility open that things may change, because that is what science is about.

How do you think evolution works?
As in, what proof would you need to change your mind?

Common theme of all these threads is OP is looking for our monkeys in the zoo to turn into humans.

originally posted by: spygeek

You might as well say the pyramids were built by aliens because we didn't observe it, even tough we have demonstrated and observed how they could have been built by humans.

Scientific analysis, Occam's razor, and commons sense agree with evolution.

Lol, I agree with you on the pyramid thing. But let's be real, common sense is no where close to agreeing with evolution. That might be true among scientist but I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would disagree with that.

a reply to: Sremmos80
I LOVE Wikipedia.org references as this information center seems to want to be the material version of the Akashic Records (do you know who or what IT is exactly; chops, clout/credibility?). This tells me you are actually thinking as someone other than yourself.

There's always this.

I get the feeling your definition of evolution is different than the actual definition of evolution though.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: sn0rch

I ain't running with it, I'm flying with it.

Maybe, but most Dinosaurs where considered large, and there were various types of dinosaurs of sizes and structures.

I just flew into the google nest, and as I laid my droppings on some rich mans tuppee, I saw this.
askabiologist.asu.edu...

Up Up an away...Pppphhhrrr

lol

They were considered large, but some of that is also misleading. The velociraptor for instance, nothing like Jurassic park.. More like a big turkey.

The earth had less oxygen back then, which is not in favour of larger life, that would require massive amounts of oxygen to supply the large mass with oxygen.

But we do know they were large. Unless you're a member of Christians against Dinosaurs, and consider that every fossile is just a rock configured in a way to make it look like a creature that once lived.

You aint Kristen Auclair, are you?? She thinks once you break a rock into pieces, you can make it back into any shape you want.

lmao

a reply to: sn0rch

Ok, so in other words you only agree with evolution because the idea of a creator or designer is beyond your comprehension right?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: sn0rch

I ain't running with it, I'm flying with it.

Maybe, but most Dinosaurs where considered large, and there were various types of dinosaurs of sizes and structures.

I heard they ate themselves out of existence (problem! they are denuding the rain/hardwood forests faster than the vegetation is able to replenish itself) *destroy this experiment*. My concern is where are the 14 foot feathers (someone will find the perfect limestone specimen).

Where are the 14 foot feathers?

Where are the tiny feathers your budgie had when you were a kid?

They must be somewhere !!

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I love that you didn't choose to show that it is wrong.
Really shows that you don't want to for some reason or can't.

www.livescience.com...
Here, here is another one.
www.nap.edu...
www.britannica.com...

Like I get that wiki can be iffy sometimes, but it isn't all garbage.