For those who believe, or more appropiately, accept the Evolution theory, would you be willing to tell me a little more about evolution and how there's a bunch of evidence for it? I'm kind of curious about it.

From reading the comments here, you do seem to have at least a basic understanding of how evolution works. Here is some evidence for it summarized in my standard answer to this sort of question:

SOME EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION:
A: I would say the strongest evidence is molecular evidence. Humans, and all the other mammals, have still genes (altough they aren't being used, they are just in our DNA) that are relicts from our ancient ancestors. We have genes that were useful for survival in the oceans. Whales, mammals that went back into the water, have two sets of genes for surviving in the oceans, the first from their ancestors, the second set is newer from the time when their ancestors went to make a living in the water again. Another piece of evidence going into this is geographical distribution. The animals living on the same continents are generally closer related to each other. (A creationist migh argue that 'god used the same blueprint for similar climates'. This argument can refuted by pointing out that animals that live in similar climate, but on different parts of the world, are not closely related. And sometimes, DNA of an organism is invaded by viral DNA. Some retroviruses can copy themself into the genome of organisms. This happened lots of time in all kinds of species. Now here comes the thing: Different species have EXACTLY the SAME viral DNA in EXACTLY the SAME PLACES on the chromosomes. This clearly shows that those different species evolved from a common ancestor, or how else would you account for those invasions? Two exact same viruses invading at the exact same time independantly? This several times among all kinds of different species?

B: Other great evidence is 'evolution in action'. We all know that dogs came from wolves through artificial selection (humans chose the tamest wolves to breed from). Dogs and wolves are still the same general species (they can still interbreed, this is the definition of species), but they are of different races (the human 'races' are by the way not the same thing as dog races. Racism has no foundation in genetics, because blacks and whites have way more things in common than dogs have with wolves). But even though they are still canids (biological term for dogs, wolves, dingos and coyotes), there is a whole lot of diversity. And think about it, this diversity came about in 10'000 years (that's when the 'neolithic revolution' took place, the time when homo sapiens (us, a species belonging to the family of the great apes) started with agriculture. Evolution is happening since more than 3.5 billion years. This is a LOT of time, and you can imagine how much anatomical change happens in this time.
Another example of evolution in action is the following link. Scientists managed to observe the evolution of a different trait in a bacteria, that normally distinguishes this kind of bacteria from others. A new species has evolved: http://www.newscientist.com/.../...t-in-the-lab.html
Another example are the so-called ring species. They are modern animals living in a huge ring. Two different species next to each other (they can't interbreed), but a line of gradual, succesful interbreedings between the animals can be found, that goes around in a ring, until it reaches the other species. This shows speciation in action. Normally, the intermediates are dead, but in the special cases of ring species, we can look at them and study them. Here an example of a ring species, two types of salamander: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
Here you have it! A circle of intermediate species, all there for you to study. It starts with one species, and ends with a different species that is unable to reprdoce with the other. That's 'macro-evolution', one species evolved into another species.

C: Another good prove of evolution are so-called 'mistakes of design'. A very good example is the (apparent) 'design' of flatfishes. They evolved from ancestors that started to lay sidewards on the ground (for some reason this gave them benefits of surviving). So they could only see with one eye. The other eye wandered around the skull over evolutionary time. There are even 'transition fossils' of this kind of evolution. The head now looks extremely distorted, and no sane designer would desing such a fish. He would do it in the way rays are shaped. By the way, rays went through a similar process, but they didn't have to distort their skulls, because they were already flat to begin with, while the other types of flatfish evolved from an 0-shaped ancestor. Here's a link http://dsc.discovery.com/.../...sh-evolution.html
Other 'mistakes of design' include the human eye (a very ironic example, since humans are supposed to be the crown of god's creation). The human eye has a blind spot, because the nerves of the eye start on the wrong side, so they have to leave the eye again through the blind spot, this is why one doesn't see with this particular spot in the eye. Examples of other animal's eyes (not related to mammals, the eye (many different kinds of eyes actually) evolved about 40 times INDEPENDENTLY!) I think those animals I mean are some kinds of squids)show that it could have been done otherwise. Evolution can't use magic, it is based on adaptations of ALREADY EXISTING structures.
Other mistakes of design are the now useless relicts of our evolutionary past (human tailbone, leg-bones of whales, appendix etc.).

D: And last but not least, there is the fossil record. The fossil record is much more complete than creationists like to claim. Scientists have fossil from every major phylum-changes. (meaning fish-amphibia, amphibia-reptilia, reptilia-mammal, reptilia-birds). Note that mammals aren't 'higher animals' than fishes. Every living organism has had the same time to evolve. They both started from the same ancestor, and they both kept evolving all those billions of years. This is the reason humans DID NOT evolve from monkeys, the evolved from ape-like ancestors (which were earlier monkey-like ancestors). Those ape like ancestors were geographically separated (in case of human and chimpanzees, this was about 6 million years ago), and since then the hominids evolved (from ardipithecus, to different forms of australopithecus to homo habilis, to home erectus and eventually to homo sapiens). In the same time, the rest of the ancestor population kept evolving and the 'end' product (evolution is still happening, it's just way too slow as that we could observe it with big animals that don't reproduce often) are the chimpanzees (and bonobos which are equally close related with us, this means a population of chimpanzee ancestors split up and became both bonobs and chimps).

Science doesn't work in a single line. It's a huge net of interrelated theories and observations. Evolution explains so many phenomena, it can't be wrong because it fits so well.

"Without evolution, biology is a collection of miscellaneous facts.... With evolution, a great light breaks through into the deepest recesses, into every corner, of the science of life. You understand not only what is, but why." -Richard Dawkins

If you want to learn more (it really is a very interesting subject!), I'd recommend the following books: 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'The selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins.

Comments

Thanks 773491, +2. This was a very deep answer and would like to discuss this further with you if you'd like?
- Report
by Coexist on July 13th, 2009
Sure, feel free ask whatever you want.
- Report
by 773491 on July 13th, 2009
I've watched these videos, http://il.youtube.com/watch and

http://il.youtube.com/watch
But there's a bunch of terminology that I don't understand. I had Sympho de proggy "translate," lol, the Chromosomal fusion and ERV part, but he gets real busy with college and such and I don't want to put too much on his plate. If you could help me with the other two, that would be great.
- Report
by Coexist on July 13th, 2009
The links don't work, but I can imagine what it would say. So which other two videos do you mean?
- Report
by 773491 on July 13th, 2009
The videos were 1)Neanderthal DNA 2)Chromosomal Fusion 3)Retroviral DNA and 4)Summation.
I think it will work this time
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0&feature=PlayList&p=0FB1F085BD950D0F&index=0
.
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM&NR=1
- Report
by Coexist on July 14th, 2009
Yes it worked.
1) Neanderthal DNA
I wouldn't call this an 'irrefutable proof' since this is not really a proof for evolution, however it is a very fact and a good argument against biblical creationism. Neanderthal man were hominids that went extinct about 40000 years ago. The interesting thing is that they are not our ancestors, they are less close related to us than one would expect. This poses a problem to creationists, since they claim that God made only humans special and separate from animals, yet as we have seen, there was another species with music, art and 'religion' (burying the dead), that just happened to go extinct (modern research ironically suggests that they were killed by early humans).
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
Now some terms:
Mitochondrial DNA: Not really important that you know what it is, it's kinda complicated. Mitochondria are responsible that we can release the energy in our body, they make chemical reactions that splits sugar molecules into smaller products and energy, which can be used by the muscles. Mitochondria are bacteria dependant of multicellular animals.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
They have separate genomes that undergo 'evolution' too (probably not in the adaptive sense, their gene sequences mutate at a constant rate, and most mutations don't have an effect on their appearance, yet you can still compare the sequences), therefore you can measure the relatedness of two species by comparing their mitochondrial DNA. You could also just compare the actual DNA of the two species, the reason why researches took mitochondrial DNA is probably because it was more accessible.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
By the way, the genetic code consist of four 'letters', ATGC, that represent molecules (nucleotides) and form base-pairs. The amazing thing about this is that the code is truly digital, and is in all animals pretty much the same. This allows us to compare the genomes of two species 'letter by letter', like you would compare different versions of the same book.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
Modern linguists do the same thing, with a technique called 'textual criticism', they compare all the different copies of ancient texts. By counting the errors, they can produce 'family trees' for books, and see which writer copied from which other book. This way, they can trace back the most accurate and original verstion of the book, even when this first version (as it is often the case) got lost.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
At 3:06 in the first video, you see a graphic about DNA comparison. The y-axis stands for the percentage of base-pairs that fullfill the condition on the x-axis. The x-axis is the number of differences in those base-pairs. For example: 15% of the human base-pairs (the same pairs from different people) have 7 differences. Another example: 20% of the comparisons of the same base pair, one human the other neanderthal, show 25 differences. So neanderthals are closer related to us than chimps (our closest living relatives), yet still much further apart from us than our direct ancestors (homo erectus and even homo habilis).
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
2) chromosome fusion. You said this was already explained to you, but I'd still like to say something about it. This is actually a brilliant piece of evidence and I should have included it into my 'collection'. The amazing thing about this is that evolution allows us to make predictions, and then perform experiments to confirm those predictions.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
Facts: Humans have 46 chromosomes (two sets of 23, each set inherited from one parent), the other great apes have 48 chromosomes. Now since evolution argues that humans share a recent common ancestor with the great apes, we must be able to find that chromosome or else evolution is wrong (it couldn't just disappear, the loss of a whole chromosome would bring so much changes in the set-up that this would be fatal).
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
So scientists closely examined the human chromosomes, and indeed found clear evidence that chromose 2 of the human genome is the product of a fusion between two chromosomes. That truly is irrefutable proof.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
3) ERV: I already discussed this in my answer, if you want to read it agaAnd sometimes, DNA of an organism is invaded by viral starting with 'And sometimes, DNA of an organism is invaded by viral DNA...'
Again irrefutable proof, especially since it's not just human-chimps, you find those viral traces in all species, and it adds up everywhere.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
4) Summation:
That bascially means that it all just fits perfectly, symbolized in that last quote in my answer. You compare the embriology of animals and try to find out which animals are closer related to each other than to others, then you end up with a 'tree of life' based on embriology. You do the same thing with anatomy, comparing the similarities of bones and such, then yo uget a 'tree of life' based on anatomy. Then you do the same thing based on DNA comparison. And guess what: All tree trees of life are identical.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
Additionally, you can then look at the geographical distribution of those major groups, and you will see that this also confirms that animals evolved. It even fits with continental drift and the fossil record, so you can trace back the tree of life.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
Again feel free to ask if there is anything you don't understand.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
Oh by the way for video 2, 'homologous' is a term used in comparative anatomy meaning that the features are at the very same place in different animals. They might have different size, shape and function, yet there are the same amount of bones in the same order.
- Report
by 773491 on July 15th, 2009
Hey, thanks for the explanations, but could you get into more detail on the Summation thing? I feel I don't have my mind wraped around that subject very well. Thanks.
- Report
by Coexist on July 15th, 2009
I'm not going to be on very much either, I seem to be busy a lot.
- Report
by Coexist on July 15th, 2009
If you look at animals, you'll notice that some animals look similar to other animals, they seem to form groups. For example, all dogs are obviously in a group, but also wolves and coyotes are very similar to dogs and seem to belong into that group. They all share many characteristics. There also seem to be groups on a higher level, for example all mammals share many important characteristics, or all reptiles. And then there are even higher levels, the distinction between plants and animals.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
In biology, species are classified and ordered in a specific sheme. Take humans as an example, look at the chart at the right of this page at the top: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
'Scientific classification'
You see that there are categories like 'domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.' The higher the category, the more elements it contains. Humans, Chimps, Pygmy Chimps, Gorillas and Orang-Utans for example are all the members of the family 'hominidae'.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
Humans are the only member of the Genus 'homo', yet there are fossils of other species that belong to homo (homo erectus, homo habilis and homo neanderthalensis) that would also belong into that Genus. And finally, the last category is species that exactly defines one sort of animal/plant or whatever.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
This sort of relatedness can be depicted in a 'tree of life'. At 2:07 in the second video, you see an example of such a tree. The different branches stand for different categories. The branches at the bottom are thicker than the ones at the top, since they unite much more categories.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
Now the question is: How exactly did scientists draw those trees? What criteria did they use to place living things into certain families, orders and so on. The answer is: There are many different methods. The phylogenetic tree for example does this by DNA comparison. In my comment from July 15th 06:26, you can again look up how this works.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
However, you can also just study the embriotic devolopment of animals. By comparing the similarities of different animals, you will end up with another tree of life based on embriology. Look at 2:46 in the 2nd video to get an idea of this.

Now you can do the same thing by looking at the anatomy (4:15 second video). Then you get a tree of life based on anatomy.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
The very fact that you CAN categorize animals this way is not an obvious fact. If animals where created by god, there would be no need to place them into such obvious groups, especially not on higher levels. This already suggests that animals evolved. And the final proof comes when you compare the trees of life of all the disciplines: Genetics, Anatomy, Embriology, (Metabolism etc)... They are all identical! The conclusion is either this is by far the biggest coincidence in the history of the universe, or, animals have evolved.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
Now based on those trees of life, we can now make predictions for the fossil record. Since the closest related 'class' of animals related to mammals are the 'reptiles', there must be a common ancestor of mammals and reptiles. (Since that ancestor lived millions of years ago, it's not a 'modern' mammal or reptile of course, but shares basic early characteristics of both classes). And indeed, such 'transitional forms' have been found. But there should NOT be an amphibian-mammal transition form. And indeed, none has been found. You can do the same thing with all kinds of relatednesses.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
Watch again the the second video from 7:56 to 9:03. At 8:42 you see the distribution of certain fossil types, and those distributions too fullfill the predictions based on evolution. Since continents moved apart from each other, and mammals evolved late, they won't be found in isolated continents, and indeed, aren't.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
By the way, there is a book coming out soon dealing with the evidence for evolution: 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins.

Please ask specific questions if you need further elaboration.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
Wow, 77 you are pretty good with you explanations. I applaud you. I saw a book by Richard called "The God Delusion" that I wanted, but I didn't have my money with me. When does his newest book come out, do you know?
.
Also, I've been asked the question "If we came from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys around?" How do I approach this question? Could you aslo give me like common questions asked and answers for them? I'm not very good at defending evolution and I want to be more effective at it.
.
Thanks, you're doing a terrific job ;-)
- Report
by Coexist on July 16th, 2009
Thank you, I appreciate it. Not even two years ago, I knew very little about evolution and science. Then some event triggered my curiosity and I became so fascinated with such stuff that I read dozens of books about evolution and science. I don't get why people generally know so few things about it, it's like the most fundamental thing ever..
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
I've read God Delusion, it's a very interesting book. But I like his books on evolution better. The new book will come out sometime in September I think.

The monkey question is kinda stupid because we didn't really evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with them. Modern monkeys evolved for exactly the same amount of time as humans (and every other living thing on earth). We are like cousins with apes, and our grandparents would be the common ancestors.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
So some group of those common ancestor primates became isolated from the rest of the species and because they then lived in different conditions and didn't interbreed anymore with the others, they evolved into a different direction and eventually became humans, while the rest of that ancestor population evolved into chimps (and bonobos too actually, they speciated again).
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
Why aren't we still evolving?

First of all, who says that we aren't? Evolution takes hundred thousands of years for visible changes. In humans, there is no natural selection working anymore, we have medicine and health care, so fortunately even the sick and weak people survive and reproduce. Therefore, humans will most likely become 'weaker' and 'sicker' because of evolution. But that's not really a problem since we do have medicine and it takes such a long time till we'll notice that so we will probably have killed each other by then anyways.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
So you see, evolution is not always 'beneficial', what happens is just that the individuals who live longest and reproduce the most get more of their fair share of genes into the next generation, therefore genes that make individuals live longer and reproduce more often IN A CERTAIN ENVIRONMENT will tend to become dominant.
- Report
by 773491 on July 16th, 2009
Thanks 77 for the explanations. I think I have the basic idea. I'm going to get some books on evolution and perhaps some scientific books as well. If I develope any additional questions, I'll be sure to get back to ya. Thanks again ;-)
- Report
by Coexist on July 17th, 2009
start with +2 its all i can give:
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
you asked me to give imput I will now give imput.
A)
1)the same building blocks were used just as If i build a car i would also use the same wheels off my dads old vw or ford
2)genetic loss is not evolution it is adaptation or an unneed of a part like not needing eyes anymore,and creationists agree with adaptation or (microevolution) dogs will have many different kinds of dogs with short long wirey straight colored hair but still dogs.
3)genetic virus simply means the same type virus affects you as it does a Hare (rabbit).
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
B)
1)all mankind was created in the image of GOD thus slavery of humans via color or whatever is inexcusable all are equal.
(slavery in the bible was two warring tribes when one was defeated instead of killing them they would take them for 7 years in payment of their life, at the end of that they (the slave) had the option to become part of the family(just as another uncle...) or leave peacefully.)
2)a dog is a dog is a dog even from a wolf or chiuaua(um help with spelling) even dogs that cant interbreed are still dogs.
3)traits are just that traits and can increase or decrease,just because we define them that way doesnt mean GOD does.
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
4)salamanders are salamanders are salamanders. the interbreeding of salamanders that cant interbreed is just the continual of microevolution.
a mule cannot breed (or not in 1/10,000)doesnt mean its not of the "equestrian" family. its still a horse type small large long hair white w black lines brown even having horns(supposedly horses used to have horns{natural history museum})still a horse.
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
C)first of all you claimed yourself that it was BENEFICIAL to the creature... so must be a good design. but second of all creationists still believe in microevolution and that adaptation seemed to really work. whether GOD gave this to them right away or it adapted over the last couple thousand years, I dont know but It works. PS my dad loves Motorcycles with a side car, I believe they should have one on both sides but he doesn't. (mabey GOD has a different idea of GOOD than you do.
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
A 1) But why does a boat have the remains of those vw wheels? Why does a plane have them? For example, whales have clear leg bones that are of no use anymore (whales are mammals, not fishes).
Quote from above: 'The very fact that you CAN categorize animals this way is not an obvious fact. If animals where created by god, there would be no need to place them into such obvious groups, especially not on higher levels. This already suggests that animals evolved. And the final proof comes when you compare the trees of life of all the disciplines: Genetics, Anatomy, Embriology, (Metabolism etc)... They are all identical!'
- Report
by 773491 on July 28th, 2009
Just because something isn't "PERFECT" does not mean that it was not designed right. the aircraft I work on each day have thin skin because they need to be lite for flight but against guns they dont work too well they are very close tollarance mechanics, same with our eye, and as far as I know if you didn't have this blind spot it would be hard to see during the daytime.
2) for vestigual parts of the body (not needed) go ahead and cut your tail bone off and tell me if you need it or not. (or ask someone who has it cut off. they dont walk right its extremely painful to sit or stand etc. (its needed even if you dont know why)
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
A 3) This is very important that you understand this: It's not just the same type of virus that affects different species. It affects closely related species, sometimes whole groups of species. And, the viral DNA is found in exact the same places in the genome! There are so many letters of DNA that it's impossible that the virus by chance happens to hit the exact same spots dozens of times for every species in question. And there are hundreds of different viral traces, each one is found at exactly the same places in other animals too. This is irrefutable proof.
- Report
by 773491 on July 28th, 2009
you see wheels on cars boats airplanes etc, and explain it by saying these were the best of the best thus they passed on.
I see wheels on cars boats airplanes etc, and explain it by saying these were a great design and the designer continued to use it.
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
4. A salamander is not a species, it's the name of an Order (caudata), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamander and here an example species, look at the classification window at the right of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbender
To compare this with humans: Our order is 'primates' see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
If you say that the evolution from salamander to salamander is not evolution, then the evolution from our shared ancestor with gibbons on gorillas is not evolution either.
- Report
by 773491 on July 28th, 2009
There is too much to get into here, I can go on about why your 'design argument' is wrong, but let's focus on the virus thing because it's simple. Can you find a convincing explanation for those viral traces?
- Report
by 773491 on July 28th, 2009
sorry I am not a geneticist by any means. I picked up a college based genetics book to study hermapherdites and find out the truth but that is about all i can do. my ONLY interpretation on genetics is that the code seems a lot like the coding of a computer that their is 1s and 0s that make up all things i type or see or play videogames. and genetics seem to be the same type of building blocks but you are right that I could not be a good argument with that.
- Report
by guardian on July 28th, 2009
That's actually a very good interpretation. The genetic code is truly digital as in computers, only difference being that while computers use 1 and 0, life uses A, T, C and G (standing for different nucleotides). And there are millions of letter in DNA, the virus got copied into the exact same place hundreds of times independently. The only reasonable explanation is that this 'invasion' happened to the common ancestor of all the animals having this viral DNA.
- Report
by 773491 on July 28th, 2009

Sorry for not being clear or misunderstood... I didn't mean for my question to seem like I didn't believe it, actually I'm biased right now as should be expected. I can't say evolution isn't true if I don't know much about it. That would be ignorant! I've actually looked into it a little bit. I've looked into Chromosomal fusion and Endogenous Retro Virus's (ERV's). And I would like to learn more about it, so that I can question others in real life and challenge them (Religionists to be more specific). Thanks for answering, +2
- Report
by Coexist on July 4th, 2009
ah sorry i thought you needed some prior convincing! Im still learning how it works too.
- Report
by Fenchurch on July 4th, 2009
lol, no problem.
- Report
by Coexist on July 4th, 2009
Fenchurch, what if human and chimp DNA are 98% the same because the same creator created both species? Chimps and humans both need genes for hearts and livers and muscles and bones etc. I agree there is a time problem in creation theory, but this is not any bigger problem than gaps in the fossil record. How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Also, if "higher" organisms evolved from "lower" organisms, where did the more sophisticated genes and DNA come from? Not from random mutation and selection even in trillions of years.
- Report
by tapatio on July 9th, 2009
evolution is actually supportted by a wide variety of evidence. Evolution is right up there with the basic principles of elementary physics in terms of observational support. half of the sciences that support our everyday knowledge have just as much if not less proof, but creationists are especially picky on evolution, using unreasonable questions to pick it apart, even though it has all the support of any other empirical science, and a thousands times more physical and biological proof than creationism.
- Report
by Fenchurch on July 10th, 2009
@pokeypup, even the 'useless' strings of DNA, the ones that don't actually get translated into proteins, share the similarities. Before the Cambrian explosion, organisms consisted only of smooth tissue and had few hard parts like shells and such, therefore hardly ever fossilized.

@Fenchurch, I like you avatar name.
- Report
by 773491 on July 13th, 2009
ty :D
- Report
by Fenchurch on July 13th, 2009

Thanks for answering, +2
.
I would/have looked on wiki. before, but there is a BUNCH of terminology that I'm not familiar with. That's why I've turned to willing teachers on AB ;-)
- Report
by Coexist on July 4th, 2009
Any terms in particular you're stuck on?
- Report
by milkhoney on July 4th, 2009
lol, I looked up a thing on chromosomes, and, no kidding you, I had to look up basically all the terms. It took me forever to finish and I forgot a great majority of what it said. Look up chromosomes on wiki and see if you know what I'm talking about. (I"m sure you wont since I'm sure you know them all already, lol)
- Report
by Coexist on July 4th, 2009
Yeah right ;) Liberal Arts major here. I love the science, but I retain the implications a lot better than the specifics.
- Report
by milkhoney on July 4th, 2009

Thanks for answering, +2
- Report
by Coexist on July 13th, 2009
@Skidoo, in what way is the Burgess Shale evidence for evolution? It is a popular argument of creationists (cambrian explosion).
- Report
by 773491 on July 28th, 2009
Any fossil of a creature that no longer exists is a mystery that begs an answer. So many fossils are fragmented so there is lots of guesswork involved in reconstructing the critter - and of course plenty of space for disagreement both honest and otherwise.
.
The Burgess is so beautiful because there are an amazing number of specimens that appear complete. Many that look like they are of of the same organism from different angles. And all of them are completely different from what we see today.
.
Evolution is consistent with what the shale presents. Alone - of course - it's not evidence. But along with all the other stuff that's in my list and the much more that's not - it is a piece of the puzzle.
.
What other processes could explain all the observations we have? And which explanations are the simplest and clearest?
- Report
by 23Skidoo on July 28th, 2009

Question

For those who believe, or more appropiately, accept the Evolution theory, would you be willing to tell me a little more about evolution and how there's a bunch of evidence for it? I'm kind of curious about it.

Answers. 7 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Since the Bible has predicted all scientific discovery..... why are people so reluctant to accept the TRUTH of Genesis but so eager to believe the "theory" of evolution?

What would you need to find (what sort of evidence) in order to disprove the theory of evolution (or at least detract from it)?

Tell me a theory in evolution which you believe. (If none don't bother answering.)

Staunch creationists: what kind of evidence would you need to hear to consider/accept evolution as the explanation of life's diversity?

Clergy demands that the bones in Nairobi's National Museum of Kenya be removed from display to prevent young Africans from being corrupted by evidence of evolution. What kind of faith can't stand in the face of facts?

Professionally Researched

What did Mendel's findings about genetics add to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Who started Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Who is the scientist that influenced Darwin's theory of evolution?

What is the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution?

When was the evolution of the human skull first discovered?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Question

For those who believe, or more appropiately, accept the Evolution theory, would you be willing to tell me a little more about evolution and how there's a bunch of evidence for it? I'm kind of curious about it.

Answers. 7 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!