What is THE most compelling, substantiated, observable, provable evidence for evolution? There must be something, right?
128645
I don't think you will get a satisfying answer becausae you worded your question in a rather confusing fashion.\n\nIf you don't want to discuss natural selection, don't use the word evolution at all.  Ask about Big Bang Cosmologies instead.
663343
By God of course.  Every other belief is just a theory withouth any proof.  The proof that we were created by God is not only the Bible but everything around us.  It makes no sense to believe in evolution, because why has evolution taken a break for a very long time? Huh!  Charles Darwin was a scumbag, I bet he got hit with that evolutionary rock multiple times.
628640
What evidence might that be?
623663
you seem to be so smug in your belief of evolution.  there is no proof whatsoever of it happening.  adaptation is different.  bacteria becoming immune to antibodies is adaptation.  humans do this all the time.  the bacteria aren't changing into anything different, they are still bacteria.  \nthere is no evidence in the fossil record either to support your idea.  in fact, all evidence in the fossils says otherwise.  there is no common ancestor of humans and primates.  nowhere.  lucy was an oversized chimp.  neanderthal man is equivalent to modern man in brain capacity, body structure, and everything else, what's the difference?  you can't use the tooth of a pig to create an entire skeleton of a human, that is called fraud (piltdown man).\n\ntry these FACTS: dr. frederick hoyle did a study on the probablility of a single-celled lifeform through means of random process from the beginning of time.  the likelihood of this happening is 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power.  (anything over 1 in 1050 is considered scientifically impossible).  hoyle stated, "evolution is nonsense in the highest degree"\nthe co-discoverer of DNA, francis crick; did a similar study on the chance of one single strand of DNA happening by random chance, but the results came that the chance is so small that it is nonexistant (so close to zero it's actually there)\n\nthe alternative? intelligent design.  all evidence points to a young earth.  if the earth is millions of years old: why hasn't it stopped spinning yet?  it slows down every year?  why hasn't the sahara desert taken over the plant yet?  it's growing by the day?  why have we never seen a single star form?  why hasn't the moon left us yet?  it gets farther and farther away every year?  \n\nother science would ask: why do some heavenly bodies rotate counter-clockwise if they all resulted from the big bang?  (according to the LAW of angular conservation, they should all be spinning the same way)  why isn't there a huge vacuum (present after any explosion); but the universe is instead expanding?  (refer to newton's LAWs of relativity)  why would the population curve put the start of humanity at about 4500 years ago, if we've been around for millions?  why is the oldest tree (also the oldest living organism) only 4500 years old?  \n\nuse evolution to explain morality, emotions, intelligence, abstract thought, love, etc.  you can't.  the only plausible answer is intelligent design.  \n\nanthony flue, once the greatest known and most highly revered atheist; writing over 30 books on the subject is an oxford double-doctorate with numerous other degrees and awards.  now a theist.  the clincher?  intelligent design.  unless you think that you're smarter than this guy (and it doesn't look like it from your grammar, spelling, and theology)  study a bit more before you go bashing theists.  \n\n"when science finally comes to the top of this mountain of truth, it will see that religion has been there all along."
239860
Well, there is genetic analysis, both of the cell DNA and of the mitochondrial DNA.  That's been pretty darn conclusive in favor of evolution.\n\n(But I don't know why I bother answering you; you clearly have your mind made up already and are not interested in inconvenient facts.)
151113
Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven, in fact most evidence proves otherwise. A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory. I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution because there isn't enough evidence to support it. Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle
304152
wat are you talking about?  Evolution is something that every major scientist agrees with.  It does fit with up-to-date findings.  Hello, we just figured out the last DNA thing and that totally supports the idea of evolution.  Also, a theory must be disproved to be discarded, evolution has not been disproved.  Go back to school!
250210
Well first of all what you ask takes a book or at least a thesis to fully answer. Is it probabilistic? well I guess so it is happening already, but it is Theologists that are showing the correlations ( I believe you must find correlations before extending to congruences)of evolutionary theories  to those of biblical events. This has been going on for centuries.\n\nThe study of science  can create empirical data, but mainly relies on using empirical data. The Bible is and has been a source of empirical data for scientists looking into Darwin's theories of evolution. Evolution exists, but to what degree does it exist in the in the development of the species inhabiting this planet. That is where the debates with Darwin's theories and other evolution theories collide with theological beliefs; resulting in some to go off and search for the " Missing Link".\n\nThe Missing Link, a concept that has yet to be put into solid theory, is being sought out to bridge the gap some believe that separates Adam and Eve from the caveman/ape-man. \n\nNo science can not be wrong, the fallibility only falls on those who apply it, theorize it, and study it.
246
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
44840
I also feel that both theories can exist together.  Evolution does NOT answer where and how life began, and where and how our humanity began.  Yet, the physical evidence of evolution is undeniable.  \n\nI'm agnostic, but feel that there is something more than chance that led to our existence.
509701
Because we have a PRANKSTER GOD!!!\nHe put the bones in the ground to test our faith in him....\n\nGOD: "HAHAHAHAHAHA, I'm killing me, I'm so funny!\n\nSimple truths: there is a mountain of scientific, verifiable, measurable evidence to support the theory of evolution...and the research continues and discovers new things all the time.\nThere IS NOT A SHRED of evidence for creationism.\n\nLook at the issue from a balance of probabilities...masses of scientific evidence...or a man made book (often changed/edited/translated) of fairy stories and a bunch of crack pots...now which is more likely?
590254
It is the most viable theory to date. It has a lot of evidence that backs it, and has been shown to be absolutely true on smaller species. The problem with larger ones is that it takes sometimes millions of years for it to be noticable. We have only had the resources to investigate such phenomena for a very, very short time. Evolution is absolutely true.\n\nEdit: The guy right before me is an idiot. His "Why are monkeys still here?" question makes me ill everytime someone says it. This is the typical ignorant response you get when discussing biology with theists. Anyone who cares to disagree with evolution as a viable theory, do yourself a favor and at least understand its concepts.
113044
Gee, that's a tough one.  I'd have to say that being created by an imaginary entity out of a human rib is just a little less likely than processes that have been observed and proven to occur.\n\nI do want to complain a little about your use of "fact" though.  Evolution is a scientific theory.  It's a theory that is supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence, but it's not a "fact," per se.\n\nEvidence for evolution:\n1. Vestigial structures.\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n3. The fossil record.\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.\n7. Homologous structures.\n8. Many cellular and biochemcial processes are conserved in a variety of species.\n9. Vestigical biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).\n\nThose are just a few off the top of my head. If you'd like to know more about any of them, just ask.\n\nEvidence for intelligent design:\nUmm... the bible says so?\n\nI think the choice is clear. It's not a question of "belief," but rather of rational thought, reasoning, and examination of evidence.\n\nThat's the short version.  For the long version, click here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmiI9RyGrBhll1SPtvxyucfsy6IX?qid=1006032412355
164664
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?
465505
I think some of the answers confirm your argument. There seems to be ignorance of the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. That evolutionary change in species occurs is definitely not in question-there is no doubt whatsoever based on the extensive fossil record and physiological similarities between species-so those who make a blanket statement about evolution not being a fact are talking rubbish. Only the theory-the mechanisms involved are subject to any conjecture although there is no competing theory to challenge natural selection so that is accepted as fact by 99% of biologists. Creationism has nothing to contribute to science. It can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
326425
That is the worst evidence for god I have ever heard.\n\nHow can you see an animal an not realise the wonder of evolution .... equaly weak AND just as valid.
513419
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.\n\nThere may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field.  I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design.  Such evidence as:\n\nThe progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.\nMicrobial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA\nComplex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA\nFirst multicellular animals 670 MYA\nShell-bearing animals 540 MYA\nVertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA\nAmphibians 350 MYA\nReptiles 310 MYA\nMammals 200 MYA\nNonhuman primates 60 MYA\nEarliest apes 25 MYA\nAustralopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA\nModern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA\nOne can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.  Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly.  Why?  Because they don't want accurate results.  Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.\n\nStructural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all. \n\nThe distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.\n\nSimilarities During Development \nEmbryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, fo