Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

Okay so first off for evidence I will use dogs as they were once only wolves but throughout the many thousands of years we have been breeding dogs many of them EVOLVED different physical traits which completely altered their appearance and also evolved social traits to communicate with us. As far as I am concerned dogs are a great example of evolution.

Cats as well for that matter and if I watch the hares in this area I can see their furs change with the seasons and bears that live up north "polar bears" are white because that was the correct environmental adaptation to living in a white snowy landscape. Animals seem to change and adapt to the changes in seasons and I think that takes place at the genetic level so for me I am convinced of evolution.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Evolution has many forms and is not just relegated to species specifically. All things are created and all thing evolve in a natural way, we see evidence of this everyday. Proof? It is not necessary to provide proof of something evolving. You are the proof. One day you were born, the next day you started to see, the next day you started to crawl, the next day you started to walk, etc.

Every idea starts the creative process. Then the idea evolves into something else, then someone comes along and improves it, also, a form of evolution.

Are you saying that in order for something to evolve it must be created first, or do you mean something else?

I will state this once, because I feel it needs to be said, the Theory of Evolution has no beginning, it does not explain how the first single celled organisms that we all evolved from got here. It doesn't try to, it just explains what happened after that. Want some proof of it? Here is a link to Berkeley's section of their website on it.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

I've said for a long time that the only reason Evolution and Creationism can't coexist is because the proponents of it are unwilling to work together or admit that any fraction of the other's theory could be correct. They are not mutually exclusive by design. Who is to say that Evolution couldn't be a tool of the Catholstian god? Hell, both of them have holes that could easily be filled by each other.

originally posted by: Barcs
Your quote mines don't prove anything.

Neither does your link to a well known propaganda outlet...

Another FACT: If Wikipedia says so, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

originally posted by: aBlueRAY
From a psychoanalytical point of view, I have to assume deep in your heart you know wikipedia would be the number one piece of propaganda available online for the masses.

It is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence. There's a reason Soros supports it. Because his vast minions can manipulate it. And manipulate it they do.

Who Controls Wikipedia?

The problem with Wikipedia is not that it exists, but that it has become the cornerstone for researchers scanning the Internet for information and blindly copying from Wikipedia entries, wrongfully assuming that they are neutral and correct.

It has become the "Ministry of Information", the "one-stop information shop" of the Internet, but no one should fall for the "Newspeak" of a title. Wikipedia has made the task for those seeding disinformation and removing dissenting views easier, more direct and even more anonymous. °

Wikipedia Lies:Online Disinformation & Propaganda

Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the Internet - Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda operations against US and world citizens.

How US Agents Can Embed in Wikipedia, Plant Propaganda, Deceive Citizens

a reply to: Murgatroid

Another FACT: If Wikipedia says so, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

That is priceless.

*Cracks fingers* Ok, here we go.

Let's start with micro-evolution. If you have a look here, en.wikipedia.org... you'll see a 30 year ongoing experiment with E-Coli that fits perfectly with evolutionary theory, at least on a microbial level. The E-Coli was able to adapt and effectively evolve to better make use of it's resources.

Onto macro-evolution. This is harder to show in experimental terms, as one would need a life expentancy of many thousands of years before one could witness evolution on the macro scale. Nontheless, we find everything is as we would expect were macro-evolution true. For example, if you have a look at this video www.youtube.com... you'll see one such example of evolution at work. The laryngeal nerve ought to connect from the brain staright to the larynx, and it would if it were designed, even by us. However it runs from the brain down into the chest, wraps around a main artery and goes back up to the larynx. That's exactly what we would expect to see if this nerve had evolved before the giraafe's long neck. Also, look to mans domestication of wolves to see selective evolution at work.

Upon reading some of your replies, I want to make it clear that were evolution is (just) a theory, it's backed up by almost every evidence we find. We can't definitivey prove it, not yet, but such is the same for gravity, and yet we can be almost certain of it's existence, and again, every evidence we have supports it. To disprove evolution would be quite easy. If we found fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, evolutionary theory woukld be sunk, because that's the wrong fossil in the wrong time period. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) that's not waht we find. Instead, when looking at the fossil record, everything is as we would expect were evolution true.

Sure, we could be wrong, but amidst the chaos I align myself with the evidence. And the evidence points to evolution. All it takes is to read it.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Another FACT: If Wikipedia says so, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

LOL, ya that is a fact alright.

Not saying everything is true on there but that is a pretty large blanket statement.

Denying ignorance is getting past what you are told.
Wiki is fine, it just isn't the end all be all of sources.

a reply to: Murgatroid

What, if anything, does your post about wikipedia have to do with evolution?

Most people who post links from wikipedia do so as a starting point. Wikipedia articles are filled with these little superscripts called CITATIONS which provide the actual sources that the article is based on. So one way to determine if there is bias or corruption of wikipedia is to see if the article lines up with the sources and that the sources are themselves not corrupt. Making paranoid blanket statements about how everything on wikipedia is a lie doesn't do you much good.

And as far as evolution goes wikipedia has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is a scientific fact, people post the links to it because it is a summary of a topic based upon tons and tons of citations which themselves contain some of the evidence for evolution. If you want to say that wikipedia is lying about evolution you're going to need more than blanket accusations of corruption, if your point is just to discredit wikipedia and you have nothing to say about evolution than you are off topic in this thread.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Neither does your link to a well known propaganda outlet...

Another FACT: If Wikipedia says so, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet? LMAO. The only reason I used it was because their list is organized and easy to read, plus it goes in order.

But surely if it's just propaganda, you can show me which fossils listed on that page are false. All of them are sourced and based on real fossils that we have in museums, but hey don't take it from me, follow the source links at the bottom of the page. Sorry but your statement that no transitional/intermediary fossils exist is still a blatant lie.... unless you can debunk the list?

More links for the google-challenged:

www.transitionalfossils.com...

www.livescience.com...

rationalwiki.org...

darwiniana.org...

The ball is firmly in your court now. Show me the false sources or false fossils on the list, and then we'll discuss. I doubt you'll do that. You'll pull the usual disappearing act and then spew the same rhetoric in another thread down the road. I think you need a new gimmick. Science isn't some gigantic conspiracy, in fact you are using a product of science to communicate in this thread.

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

Most evolution-deniers also have an aversion to deliberate fraud.

One does not understand propaganda by studying propaganda.

Joining a cult in order to understand one is never going to work.

Makes just as much sense as saying we need to listen to politicians to learn the truth about politics.

Or saying we need read "Dianetics" in order to figure out what Scientology is all about.

In fact, you will NEVER understand any type of fraud by looking at it from the inside out.

What I find so preposterous is why so many Darwinists have proven themselves to be so famously gullible even after countless frauds have been exposed.

The credibility has long since vanished.

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Have you ever niticed the changes in the appearance of pweople in the photographs taken over the past 150 years or so?
This, of course, roughly corresponds with the advent of people beginning to chose for themselves who they will marry and having their mates chosen for them by others.
I am not saying this would stand as conclusive proof of evolution. I am just trying to point out some evidence of changes which have been recorded as it has taken place.

Oh, wait.
A part of the deffinition of evolution is "changes".

a reply to: Murgatroid

You mention a few select frauds, yet ignore the thousands of verified fossils and other pieces of evidence. By all means please respond to the evidence provided 2 posts up from here or the ones listed in my response to the the Vethumane guy. None of what you quoted above are scientific theories. LMAO at comparing evolution to dianetics. Evolution isn't a belief system, it's a scientific field of study. If you can't familiarize yourself with the mechanics or even basic fundamentals of how it works, then you have no ground to attack it from. It's that simple. I wouldn't argue against religion or christianity if I didn't first read their books and understand where they are coming from. I wouldn't argue with my auto mechanic if I knew nothing about car engines. I wouldn't argue against a computer technician if I knew nothing about how computers work. Those are much more valid comparisons than dianetics.

And you talk about looking at something without looking within, but that is dishonest because you are not researching both sides. You are ASSUMING it's propaganda before you even learn about it. That is bias, my friend. Anybody claiming to debate evolution or criticize the theory should read both sides in order to understand the theory itself instead of spewing all kinds of lies and falsehoods about the science that you clearly hate with a passion to the point that it blinds you. I love when folks that have never picked up a science book in their lives try to criticize science as if they know more than the folks working in the field that have studied it for decades. Yeah those thousands of biologists are all wrong or paid off yet nobody has dared to come forward aside from creationist hacks. Yeah I'll buy that.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Well yes when you think everything is a fraud I guess it would be hard to believe anything.

The science is there if you want to look at it with an open mind.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Most evolution-deniers also have an aversion to deliberate fraud.

It's funny you say that since evolution deniers push fraud after fraud trying to prove Creationism. Ever heard of Ron Wyatt? Of course you have, you've endorsed him before on this website.

One does not understand propaganda by studying propaganda.

Another interesting tidbit since it is the evolution deniers who are always creating strawmans about evolution to try to debunk it instead of actually reading what scientists are ACTUALLY saying and debunking that.

Joining a cult in order to understand one is never going to work.

*cough*all religions are cults*cough*

Makes just as much sense as saying we need to listen to politicians to learn the truth about politics.

Or saying we need read "Dianetics" in order to figure out what Scientology is all about.

In fact, you will NEVER understand any type of fraud by looking at it from the inside out.

What I find so preposterous is why so many Darwinists have proven themselves to be so famously gullible even after countless frauds have been exposed.

There is no such thing as a Darwinist.

The credibility has long since vanished.

Yea, I'm not going to lose any sleep over you thinking we don't have any credibility. I've seen the content of YOUR evidence, and let's just say that at least science doesn't trust wingnut sites that say whatever they feel like and try to pass it off as truth, or just flat out source forum posts like that is supposedly evidence of anything.

Though I got to hand it to you for showing some restraint for once and not tacking on a bunch of useless quote mines to the end of your post here. I mean you have one, but no one cares about Jonathan Tennenbaum's opinion anyways.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Most evolution-deniers also have an aversion to deliberate fraud.

What an absolute joke.

Some of the heroes of creationists:

Ken Ham
"Dr" Kent Hovind
"Dr" Carl Baugh
Ray Comfort

And how many scientists do you see going around still claiming that Piltdown man was real? Seems to me that when frauds or bad arguments are exposed in science they are abandoned. Can the same be said for creationists? Because I still hear the same tired arguments, the same arguments that I myself used when I was a creationist more than a decade ago that I later figured out were totally bunk.

Also, as a former creationist, I know what it's like to be inside a cult looking at evolution and also know what it's like to accept evolution while still looking at it from an outside skeptical position. Now that doesn't say ANYTHING about whether or not evolution is an actual scientific fact or not. Whether or not a person accepts or rejects something has no bearing on whether or not it's true, but it does have some say on your claim that evolution is a cult.

I was taught that evolution was a lie and creation was true from the time I was about 5 or 6 years old and believed that the Bible was literally true. How many times, during that period, did evolution attempt to interject itself? The first time it was even discussed in my public school career was 7th grade science class, followed by a slightly more rigorous but still brief time in 9th grade biology.

If its a war between cults evolution was given no chance to even put up a fight until I'd aged, matured a bit, and came back to the debate with fresh eyes and a better understanding.

originally posted by: Murgatroid


In fact, you will NEVER understand any type of fraud by looking at it from the inside out.

Ha... I wasn't born knowing the ins and outs of the TOE. I was a creationist first thanks to my upbringing and Christian school education.

Oddly enough, around age 12, I started to question everything I'd been told because it just didn't make sense.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Another FACT: If Wikipedia says so, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

Another FACT: If Murgatroid says so, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

Or do you want to try pushing your "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" narrative again, Murgatroid?

It's strange that people who want to prove evolution never actually prove anything but attack "creationism", as if it absolutely had to be one or the other. It is even more strange because their "evolution" always begins with some bacteria who came from where ? Did it not simply appear, exactly like all the animals in creationism ? Why is it ok to believe that a bacteria simply appeared out of nowhere, but not all the animals ? It seems to me to be the same thing. I also would like to ask this. From a bacteria to an elephant, you must have zillions of transformations, some that transformed again, and some that did not. All of those were living species, before disappearing. Why did they disappear ? Was there a catastrophe every week-end in the past ? And where did they go, why we do not find zillions of different skeletons, but only the usual dinosaurs, etc. ? Also, in the evolution, it is believe that species transform and the transformations replaces the old species because they are better adapted. If so, why did the little "rat" who appeared after the lizards, etc. and who is supposed to be the ancestor of many other animals "transformed" into other animals, as you can still see rats ! So therefor that rat was doing ok. Why was there "better adapted" animals, from that rat, since obviously they were not better adapted, because there is still an animal more or less the same as that rat today ? And the most ridiculous of all. The fish who went out of the water to become land animals. Why did they go out of the water only one time, and not every week-end ? Why they don't do it now ? Is it because it would complicate the evolution too much ? From a rat to an elephant, you must have zillions of transformations, who transform again or not, yet since Man is there to see all of this, there is nothing to see. Even the chicken, who have been bred for a long time, so there must have been a lot of generations, there is still only chicken in the egg of a chicken. We now have small or big chickens, a lot of different chickens, but they are always chickens. We can see changes today sometimes, but a specie never becomes another specie, and this is the theory of evolution. You don't need to believe in creationism to see that evolution is only another creed that people repeat like robots.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Evolution is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Some claim that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs!

Evolution can be briefly defined as a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. As such, it doesn’t require someone to believe in it in order to be a fact, much in the same way that gravity is an observable phenomenon and therefore a fact. Proof isn’t a word typically used in science , rather we usually talk about evidence that either supports a theory or runs counter to a theory. Simply put, all of the evidence gathered to this point supports the theory of evolution.

I'm not surprised that they can't, after all no one has ever seen evolution happen, for the simple fact that it cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific IMO.

See the link above for observed instances of evolution. Your opinion that evolution shouldn’t be called scientific, which is predicated on your mistaken belief that it has never been observed, is therefore invalid.

I'd like to see this so-called proof or (evidence as they like to call it) of evolution and I'm not talking about some long drawn out thesis on how evolution works. Show us the hardcore evidence. I would like to see evolutionary biologists put their theory to the test and give us some rigorous evidence that it is true, if they can, instead of merely arguing about mechanisms and presenting plausible scenarios. A few predictions of the theory that pan out or fail to materialize will not settle the issue, but rather some meaningful statistical tests. Until this is done, I would suggest that they recognize that this is a theory without a shadow of support.

It’s been presented in this thread. Have you read and understood that evidence? If so, and you still take exception to evolution being an observable phenomenon, can you explain why?

As the famous saying goes "extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence". If they have evidence let's see it, but keep in mind that limited and weak evidence is not enough to overcome the extraordinary nature of these claims.

Several hundred years of evidence supporting it is hardly “limited and weak”. Perhaps you can explain why you think the claim that allele frequencies can change within a given population over time is somehow “extraordinary” when it has been observed?

Now I know most of the ones who believe in this hogwash are gonna come in here and try to reverse the thread and demand that someone show them the evidence of God. But I am suggesting that if you can't present any hardcore evidence for evolution then just stay silent. This is a challenge for the evolutionist, a chance for them to finally reveal this so-called mounds of evidence that they have.

I see very few proponents of evolution here on ATS take that particular stance, and it’s typically the newer members who don’t quite grasp the concept of a false dichotomy – that a lack of evidence for God would somehow bolster evolution. I do, however, see creationist posters on ATS regularly try to poke holes in evolution, unsuccessfully, as a means of confirming that creationism is true.

Show us the lab results, or a time lap video of evolution, give us something besides a long born thesis. I really do want to see this evidence.

Again, been done several times in this thread. Have you directly responded to any of the evidence that has been provided to you?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
OH, so you need someone who is in deep understanding of who and what the AUO is to explain its existence. Why would I do this for you?

Look, you don't have to do anything. You say there is a Creator God that made everything. I'm simply asking how and why you're saying that. If you know it, I'm asking you to show why you know it. If you can't, or won't, fine. But that also means I don't have to believe any of it then. You don't have to act all indignant about it though, you'd expect the same from me if I made such a claim. Only I wouldn't be acting like you are right now about it.

I have spent at least 2 or 3 hours in deep contemplation reading 1000s of texts for many years in pursuit of this nebulous being, questioning myself, and relationship with it; just to give this information up to you at YOUR demanding WHIM (most likely wasted upon and laughed at) by a negatively inclined Atheist that has nothing but contempt for the God that created this world and given you the gift of the experiences and the privilege to exist within ITS REALM. Are you so arrogant in your puny self styled greatness, to not see what your are asking?

Wow and you're calling me arrogant?!?!? Oh wise keeper of the knowledge!!
I'm not demanding anything other than an explanation. Don't act like it's my fault you can't or won't provide one. I must say I love the double standard though. You come in here refuting science, demanding that people prove evolution or whatever but certainly won't apply that same burden of proof on yourself or your claims. No, you just start acting all self righteous and insulted someone asks you a question. Neat how you're above all the standards you push on everyone else, that must be nice.

You still haven't corrected the spins the left to right/right to left of your merkaba avatar. You don't know what that vehicle is do you?

For the last time I made that avatar and animated it myself. The two tetrahedra are spinning in opposite directions. I know it because I did it that way myself. If you can't see it, look a little harder and yes I know what it is. There are also other things about it besides being a spiritual vehicle that make it interesting as well.

Why do you assume I wouldn't know what it is??? Because I couldn't possibly have any knowledge outside my evil science, is that what you're getting at??? Glad to see you keep an open mind when it comes to people. But you can go look down your nose at someone else from now on. Maybe your communion with God will teach you some humility one of these days and we can talk then.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Sure, I could look it up and read tons of pages on it, but why? Alot of people on this site claim that there is evidence, I'm simply asking them to show us the evidence they have. Is that to big of a task?

Translation: I'm not going to bother to educate myself, I'll wait for others to mention facts and then blame them when I either fail to understand them or refuse to believe them.

There are umpteen threads on evolution on this site. Perform a basic search and then read some of them.