Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I doubt it, I can't see my past lives, yet. But, i wasn't aware there was a theory that Nephilim created us.
I thought they were crossbreeds from fallen angels mating with mankind.

Can you tell me about what you believe?

(this is not hostile)

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: sn0rch
I look at the evidence for evolution, and I accept it.

And you accept it based on what? Have you observed or tested any of this information your self? Or did you just take their word for it because it was written in a science book which was also written by men?

it's called common sense and logic.

Oh please "common sense and logic" really ? How is this common sense ? Little green lizard men building the pyramids makes more sense then the evolution theory.
And this Evolutionism is a religion that many seem to just accept it because it's "common sense and logic".

a reply to: spygeek
I don't have the genetic Eve marker. What this signifies is that no inbreeding took place within by family. That being said; far as my existence is concerned, there cannot or does not exist a creationist or Darwinist theory in play regarding my birth. No original Adam and Eve (that birthed us all as parents) and no single cell amoeba became human to create me. I have been studied by the Anthropology and Genetics Depts of a major University as have my siblings. We are anomalies.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I know that there have been many test done in regards to bacteria. But isn't it true that they never turn into anything new? They always remain bacteria. I know alot of test have been done on fruit flies under every conceivable condition. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies right?

SIgh. You don't "TURN" into something new. That isn't how it works. That isn't evolution. You didn't have apes one day and then humans the next.

It's a long, long, VERY LONG process of small, gradual changes in certain genetic structures that leads you to classify THIS organism as species A and THAT one as species B.

It isn't, monkey --> monkey --> monkey --> monkey --> human.

Double posted.. Sorry!

(my first time in doing so!)

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: spygeek
I don't have the genetic Eve marker. What this signifies is that no inbreeding took place within by family. That being said; far as my existence is concerned, there cannot or does not exist a creationist or Darwinist theory in play regarding my birth. No original Adam and Eve (that birthed us all as parents) and no single cell amoeba became human to create me. I have been studied by the Anthropology and Genetics Depts of a major University as have my siblings. We are anomalies.

Ummm... What?

If you are homo sapien sapien, you are distantly related to both Mitochondrial Eve (lived 99,000 to 200,000 years ago), and Y-chromosomal Adam (lived 180,000 to 518,000 years ago). This has nothing to do with "inbreeding", or the biblical Adam and Eve, these primitive humans were not the only living humans of their time, they are simply as far back as we can trace an unbroken genetic line from all currently living humans. They did not "birth us all as parents", their genetic material simply exists in all of us in an unbroken line of generations of mothers and fathers. The scientific "Adam and Eve" aren't even fixed individuals, nor did they necessarily coexist in time or place.

You seem to be suggesting you are decended from an undiscovered genetic line.. This is somewhat laughable; you must know who your parents are, and grandparents etc.. Your claim that nothing evolved into a human to create you implies that you are in fact not human, and you claim to have been studied by anthropologists and geneticists of some unnamed major university.. If these claims are true, can I ask a question?

Why are you not famous?

Seriously, a whole new species of sapiens with no genetic link to any other on this planet, currently or in the distant past? That's right up there with aliens visiting, front page stuff.

Edit: I just fed a troll, didn't I?

a reply to: noonebutme

Yup well said a simple video here attempting to explain but I doubt they will get it.

a reply to: boymonkey74

THAT made perfect sense to me. And explained it better than I did.

Now, why is that so hard to understand by some? I reckon it's not for lack of ability but "want". :/

So, did the creator continue making new animals after the initial creation described in Genesis?
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Here you go, a good summary of some of the observable evidence of the scientific fact of evolution.

Observed Evolutionary Events

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

The entire field of Genetics and all modern medicine relies on evolutionary theory. You interact with inventions everyday that were created using evolutionary theory. You are just being willfully ignorant with this post.

originally posted by: notquiteright
So, did the creator continue making new animals after the initial creation described in Genesis?
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I second this.

Also, which Genesis?

xD

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Nothing will ever change my mind about evolution

So wtf was the point of this thread?

This thread must have been posted in the theology section before being moved here, because the first 3 pages are downright horrible. So much ignorance, it's obvious the science people hadn't gotten a chance to respond yet.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Nope. The nature of our DNA (you must understand what a miracle this is) is not happenstance/accidental. This could never have evolved naturally.

Prove it. Just because DNA is complex doesn't mean it was created.

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.

Of course Lucy is not. Why would you expect a 3.2 million year old species to be "as evolved" (whatever that means) as a 400,000 year old species? I'm guessing your argument only gets worse from here.

The swiftness of the progression cannot be evolution.

Swiftness? Mammals have been evolving for 70 million years. Primates around 40 million. Hominids, 7 million. How is that swift?

Why did the Simians (living beside us) not evolve at the same pace as a different branch of hominids?

Why would they? Evolution doesn't follow a set time table. Each population can live in different environments and experience different genetic mutations from generation to generation. There is no pace. It is solely depending on the environment and what gives them survival advantages in this environment. Some folks have a misconception that evolution requires improvement. It does not. Much of it is dumb luck.

We as modern humans shouldn't EXIST AT ALL for another 10 million years.

I'd LOVE to see your math on this one.

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.

Pure speculation, but thanks for playing.

The Brontasaurus not included as was obviously too heavy to fly even if it had feathers.

Are you joking? The feathers weren't there for flight. Many of them were quills used for protection that LATER evolved into feathers.

That being said; far as my existence is concerned, there cannot or does not exist a creationist or Darwinist theory in play regarding my birth.

Are you an exact clone of your mother or father? If not, then the reason is because you experienced genetic mutations during your conception where your mom's genes were combined with your father's genes. Your birth shows one small step in a huge long line of evolutionary changes. It's about decent with modification, and unless you are a clone that is exactly what happened with you and it will happen with your children. After thousands of generations of breeding, your genetic line would become more diverse. The difference between you and your ancestor 1000 generations from now will be much more than the difference between your father and yourself. Now apply this concept on a scale of millions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Can you guys please stop with the micro macro evolution straw man. The mechanisms are identical. We have observed species becoming different species in a lab. There is no difference between the 2 terms except for the amount of time. We have observed macro evolution in the fossil record. Quite frankly there isn't a single explanation for the diversity of life on earth backed by evidence aside from evolution.

www.talkorigins.org...

I'll just leave this here. I know it's old, but this is the link that EVERY SINGLE science denier avoids like the plague and refuses to address. Mr Truth Seeker, perhaps you can be the first to refute it without flat out denial and burying your head in the sand. Good luck. You now have evidence.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
FACT - Absolutely no transitional forms exist anywhere...

The fossil record clearly shows that evolution never happened.

FACT: This is a blatant lie.

en.wikipedia.org...

Your quote mines don't prove anything.

OMG, this is too funny. So your saying that a creature in the ocean or let's say a lake, that once the water starts to dry up something in the brain tells them "I better start adapting new lungs before my whole species dies"? That is just down right crazy. First off, how do they know that all water is about to dry up? And second of all, if the process takes millions of years how in the world would they even be able to make the adaption without dying off first?

That isn't even close to how evolution works. If you really think that's what happens, then I understand why you doubt evolution because that is downright ridiculous.

Check my link 2 posts up from this. It contains the evidence you have ask for. Can we close the thread now or are you going to refute it?

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: boymonkey74

THAT made perfect sense to me. And explained it better than I did.

Now, why is that so hard to understand by some? I reckon it's not for lack of ability but "want". :/

Because human beings find it incredibly difficult to grasp the concept of "a million years."

The whole debate about evolution really stems from people's inability to fathom just how much time is involved.

originally posted by: Barcs

OMG, this is too funny. So your saying that a creature in the ocean or let's say a lake, that once the water starts to dry up something in the brain tells them "I better start adapting new lungs before my whole species dies"? That is just down right crazy. First off, how do they know that all water is about to dry up? And second of all, if the process takes millions of years how in the world would they even be able to make the adaption without dying off first?

That isn't even close to how evolution works. If you really think that's what happens, then I understand why you doubt evolution because that is downright ridiculous.

Also this.

Most evolution-deniers have a very rudimentary understanding of what's actually being proposed so, of course, to them it seems preposterous.

I love posting this video in these threads because it's so close to the actual extent of knowledge that many people possess about evolution:

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Well the humble hip bone is a start.

Many dinosaurs and the early avians share similar hip bones, but both are completely different creatures.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

There's probably no point in even entering a thread this late in the game but it seems every time I come back to ATS to get a whiff of nostalgia I see these same sorts of threads with the same arguments being made.

despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all

Statements like this tell me that anything I post, whether it be pictures of fossils, a break down of vestigial organs or parts in nature (such as whale hip bones), an article or video with citations or even scientific articles themselves will be utterly meaningless to you. I have severe doubts that you would begin a thread with this sort of declaration if you actually had any intention of being convinced by evidence.

However because I am a former creationist who eventually did research and accept evolutionary theory I can't resist stopping to watch the train wreck and adding my two cents.

but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs!

Have you ever been on google scholar? What about talkorigins? There are numerous experiments in the lab, and observations in the field, that confirm speciation and yes, speciation is MACROevolution, it is transition from one species to another. Of course human lifespans, and really the lifespans of human civilization as a whole, do not cover the timescales necessary to see, say, a dinosaur evolve into a bird or an ape into a man. So we have wide-eyed scientifically naïve people going around saying, “Well that's not what I mean by evolution!” when they are shown evidence of one species changing to another because what they're really looking for is a misleading red herring like the legendary Crocoduck to come up and bite them on the nose.

In reality microevolution and macroevolution are the same process observed over a different time scale and that much is obvious. What also becomes obvious when you study evolution for any length of time is that humans can accelerate it to some extent such as we have done with dogs, corn, bananas, and pretty much all other domesticated plants and animals that we use.

Artificial selection uses the natural built in evolutionary mechanism to our advantage, if evolution and natural selection were not scientific facts artificial selection simply would not work.

Show us the lab results, or a time lap video of evolution

You can look up lab results yourself and read the actual scientific papers, there's no need to have your hand held by someone on the internet when you can go straight to what experts in the relevant field are actually doing and in this information age you can do that.

As for time lapse, anyone asking for a time lapse of evolution lacks even an elementary school understanding of it and that's not an insult, just a call for educating yourself on what evolution is and what it entails.

And I can say that because I would have smugly asserted there was no evidence for evolution at one time. When I was a teenager I was a creationist and held that evolution didn't have any convincing evidence. I railed against carbon dating, pondered at the preposterous notion that a platypus could have simply evolved, and believed that human beings and dinosaurs had co-existed.

For me it all came down to a (in hindsight bad) judgment of sources. I believed I had no reason to doubt the idea that Christian sources were trustworthy and that, compared to the secular scientists, provided the best explanations of the real evidence. What sort of evidence was I looking at? The Ica Stones, supposed reports of giant bones, sandal prints in rock that supposedly had been dated to several hundred million years ago. A series of misunderstood or fabricated artifacts or stories about artifacts that I held in higher esteem than the theories of scientists because at least I could see them with my own eyes.

Eventually, luckily, the brain-washing and self-deception began to wear off and when I finally decided to give evolution a fair shake and actually take it seriously it lived up to every expectation I could reasonably expect it to while all the idols and arguments regarding creation turned out to be hoaxes, fallacies, or based on my simple stubborn ignorant refusal to even attempt to understand evolution on a basic level.

Of course I could take the time to say that the knock down evidence for evolution has come in the form of genetic studies which unequivocally prove the inter-relatedness of all life on Earth. Whether or not that holds any sway to you is entirely up to you. However the science of genetics has become so precise that we now use it to convict people of crimes and, more damningly for those who would reject its veracity, we use it to REMOVE people from Death Row. We're so certain of its results that we will actually exonerate people long held to be murderers who were put behind bars, presumably, based upon a preponderance of other evidence from the crime and found, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty.

That is the power of DNA, to exonerate someone who witnesses claimed they saw, who was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of their peers, that the DNA can now tell us are innocent.

But when that DNA tells us that we are all a part of the interconnected web of life stretching back billions of years and when that DNA says that we share a common ancestor with other extant apes, all of a sudden DNA is not good enough. Are we really willing to put a person in prison for life, or execute them, or release them back into the world based on DNA but totally reject what it tells us about our relationship with nature and life on Earth?

DNA is a chemical time lapse, every extant species is the product of every fit survivor that came before it and carries a record of that in their genes. Reject it all you want, deny it all you want, whatever, but those are the facts.