Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: noonebutme

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

I'm sorry but I just can't stop laughing at this one. No first human, really? Then were did the humans come from? I'm truly baffled on this one. Care to explain it in detail because I must be missing something.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Did you try Googling 'evidence for evolution'? There is a lot you could read before asking amateurs to come up with the evidence. Here's what the first page I found started with:
Evidence for Evolution


During and since Darwin's time, people have been looking for and studying evidence in nature that teaches them more about evolution. Some types of evidence, such as fossils and similarities between related living organisms, were used by Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection, and are still used today. Others, such as DNA testing, were not available in Darwin's time, but are used by scientists today to learn more about evolution.

Five types of evidence for evolution are discussed in this section: ancient organism remains, fossil layers, similarities among organisms alive today, similarities in DNA, and similarities of embryos. Another important type of evidence that Darwin studied and that is still studied and used today is artificial selection, or breeding.



Ancient Organism Remains

Fossil Layers

Similarities Among Living Organisms

Similarities of Embryos


So the task is to you to go to the published sites or other sources on evidence and describe why you think the scientists who wrote them all made mistakes. Then come here with your results.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

If uou can not grasp it there is no point attempting to do so.
It is explained very well in the video it is not my problem if you can not understand it.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

this thread is about Evolution, you know, the kind that many claim is the proof of man coming from apes.

Or that Apes evolved from Man
Species can adapt to their changing environment
But Apes will always be apes and Man will always be Man

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

If uou can not grasp it there is no point attempting to do so.
It is explained very well in the video it is not my problem if you can not understand it.

Bottom line is that according to this there was no first human. If there was no first human, then how did humans get here. Oh wait, was it from that fish at the end of the video? Do you honestly believe that crap?

Lol, proof of evolution versus proof of mythology? Each one cannot be definitively proven via the scientific method or any other method. A person with no proof, just a belief system chosen by the Holy Roman Empire a thousand years ago is going to ask science to prove their unprovable point, laughable.....

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

It explains it all in the video.
You can't even grasp what is said in the video otherwise you wouldn't ask.
Just because you can not understand it doesn't mean it is not factual.

^He didn't watch it. He ignored it based on one line, just like all the other evidence that has already been posted in the thread.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I'm sorry but I just can't stop laughing at this one. No first human, really? Then were did the humans come from? I'm truly baffled on this one. Care to explain it in detail because I must be missing something.

This is why it pays to research what you are arguing against BEFORE you argue. If you don't, what's the point? It only makes you look ignorant and you are only going to frustrate people you are debating. Evolution is a study of populations NOT individuals. To understand evolution you must first understand this basic concept. Next you need to understand the accumulation of genetic mutations and how certain traits can become dominant within a species. Then, finally, you have natural selection, which is basically the "hand" that chooses what lives and what dies.

There was no first human. There was a GROUP of humans. There was a population of homo heidelbergensis that changed over time as traits like slightly bigger brain size became more frequent in the gene pool. If you have a specific question about this, I'd be happy to answer it for you but I'm not about to give you an evolution 101 course. This is something you should have looked into ahead of time before using arguments that say a monkey never gave birth to a man or whatever other non points you want to make.

I also couldn't help notice that you completely neglected to address the link I posted that contained something like 30 separate types of evidence for evolution, clearly answering the OP. What gives? Are you actually interested in evidence or are you just here to stay in denial without even learning about how it works? Yes, Seek that truth.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

It explains it all in the video.
You can't even grasp what is said in the video otherwise you wouldn't ask.
Just because you can not understand it doesn't mean it is not factual.

But it's not factual, it's a guess and pretty bad one I might add. But if you like to believe in guesses so be it.

originally posted by: artistpoet
But Apes will always be apes and Man will always will Man

Man is classified as an ape, so you are dead wrong on that one.

why on earth did this need ANOTHER thread? there are literally dozens already scattered across the ats database. evolution has already been established as perfectly acceptable and even predominant in the courts of science. there is NO reason to have this discussion again except for those who are unable or unwilling to accept modern science. and that isnt going to be solved with yet ANOTHER thread on the subject. we have already tried that at least fifty times already, and behold! no results. if anything, this is just a show of rebellion. a little dog taunting the forums safely from its side of the fence. just keep walking, folks, nothing new to see. literally.

#DeleteNotRepeat

a reply to: Barcs

So apes are Man and Man are apes?

a reply to: astro363

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.

I typically see the reverse – that proponents of creationism attack evolution as if that will prove the existence of their narrative by default.

It is even more strange because their "evolution" always begins with some bacteria who came from where?

Because evolution and abiogenesis are two different areas of study. One is a study of the origin of life, the other is a study of what life does once already present. A deity may very well have created the first life on this planet, but that still wouldn’t make evolution invalid in any way.

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.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis at this point. Granted, it’s one that continues to accumulate evidence. But it also doesn’t state that a bacteria “simply appeared”. You should probably better acquaint yourself with what abiogenesis posits before trying to come up with an argument about it. The evidence doesn’t point to anything “appearing out of nowhere”; to suggest that is a strawman argument.

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.

Except that’s not how evolution posits speciation, which we have observed by the way, taking place. Again, it would help if you were better informed regarding the mechanisms of speciation before trying to claim that they don’t occur.

a reply to: artistpoet

Human is in the great ape (Hominidae) family. That doesn't mean all apes are man. Some apes are man (homo sapiens), but all humans are indeed apes.

a reply to: Barcs

A daisy is a flower and so too a rose is a flower
But a daisy is not a rose and an ape is not a Man

a reply to: artistpoet

Your analogy is flawed.

Man is an ape. I'm not saying all apes are man.

If you don't agree, take it up with the scientists that classified them that way.

a reply to: Barcs

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.

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?

a reply to: Barcs

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

a reply to: Barcs

Is this picture true or false?



Is this really how man evolved according to evolution?

a reply to: Barcs

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