ANSWERS: 7
  • im sure wikipedia would be alot more useful to you on this subject.
  • Here you go. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/The_fact_of_evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
  • You say theory like it is not true you should scientists do not use the terms in the same way According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence such as 98% similarities between human and chimpanzee chromosomes and the ability to use chimpansee or even pig organs for human transplants, as well as human skulls dating over a million years old when creationists say we have only been on this earth 6000, testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
  • 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.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions Evidence of Evolution: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm What is the evidence for evolution? http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 evidence for evolution and common ancestry: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
  • Genetics Morphology Geology Viral mutation paleontology the Burgess Shale If you're really curious then take a class taught by a supporter of evolution and be sure to ask about the above.
  • just walk around and watch the various forms people are in...shapes. many people look like gorillas, or monkeys. some even look like horses. some look like fish. its easy to see that the human being was something else before man was man.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy