So, if evolution is true, why don't we find thousands of "in-between-stages" of evolving animals, and why is there NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of MACRO-evolution. im talking evidence, not a lesson in faith.
217145
If you are talking "in between", what are you comparing it to?  'between' what and what?\n\nEvery living organism is 'in between' what its ancestors were like and what its descendants will become.\n\nIf you look through the fossil record, there are many many thousands of transitional fossils that show gradual changes in physical characters, often 'in between' one form and another.\n\nIn terms of human evolution, starting with a chimpanzee-like ancestor and ending with modern Homo sapiens sapiens, there is Australopithecus afarensis that shows adaptations for a bipedal stance - downward directed acetabula in the pelvis, broadened attachment for enlarged gluteal muscles, and greater ossification of the patella.  There is also some reduction of prognathism in the face which is related to balance issues as A. afarensis began standing upright.  All of these features are 'in between' those of chimps and the descendants, such as Australopithecus africanus which develops many of the adaptations of A. afarensis slightly farther, including even more bipedal stance, and the beginning of expansion of the brain cavity.\n\nOnce you get into the genus Homo, such as Homo habilis, there are further 'in between' forms.  The trend in general is towards enlarged braincase, and smaller face.  Homo erectus is 'in between' H. habilis and early Homo sapiens.  Early Homo sapiens is in between H. erectus and modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) etc.\n\nFrom the earliest chordate, Pikaia, through the earliest jawless fish, through the development of jawed fish, to the evolution of bony fish, to the development of muscular lobed fins in the Sarcopterygii, to the development of lungs in the Rhipidistians, to the modification of limbs into legs in the amphibians, to the development of shelled eggs and terrestrial life in the early reptiles, to the changes in skull fenestration and jaw anatomy in the Synapsids, to the modification of keratinous scales into keratinous hair, to the development of a single boned jaw and sensitive, three-boned inner ear in the early mammals, through Morganucodon and the earliest Monotremes, and the adaptation of a diphyodont, heterodont specialized dentition, and modification of sebacious glands to provide fat-rich nourishment to young mammals, to the adaptation of bearing live young, and the nourishment of developing young through a placenta, and slow, gradual expansion of the brain case throughout the primate lineage, the increase in manual dexterity and the loss of a tail in the ape lineage, there are transitional forms for every single one of these steps, and many many many more.\n\nOr can you actually come up with any kind of SCIENTIFIC reason to reject this evidence?
593054
Hey Bud, have you ever taken a class in evolution?\n\n"You're logic is flawed. There is plenty of evidence to show small adaptations within a species. These small variations enable animals to adapt to their environments.\n\nBut to go from that to changes from one species to another is quite a blind leap of faith and poor science as well. " Poor science according to who?\n\nHow many small variations does it take to turn one species into another?  A few small genetic variations make slight changes in organisms.... a few more make more changes... a few more make even more changes, and eventually enough of these little changes of added up so that the 2 groups of organisms are no longer able to interbreed. Thus, a new species - evolution at work.\n\nPoor science is when people who have not studied evolution try to disprove it. You come up with some pretty wacky ideas. Evolution is not something that animals do on purpose to improve. There is no plan, purpose, or goal to evolution. An animal that adapts to his environment (after he is already born) like your example is NOT evolution. Evolution affects populations, not individuals, and it does not 'occur' after an organism is born. Evolution only occurs when the gene frequency in the population is changed, through natural selection, random mutation, drift, etc.
351926
It's not a one to one thing, it has to do with filling niches and common ancestors.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
331712
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
455055
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
645250
Relationship to other primates had been suspected for years before Darwin   (1840's)-- simple observation.  Now with the deciphering of the geome for both chimps, and humans, relationship has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are all so similar even back to fish ---a central body with 5 protrusions -- head and 4 limbs.  I don't know it all, lady, but taught science and math for years, read Discover Magazine, Scientific American, and watch the Science channel.   Fascinating.... Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact, a lovely fact.  Our medical research on rats, dogs, and other critters would be worthless if evolution were not..   Helpful?  The question is toooo complicated to fully explain.  But you can start by reading scientific journals....   Good luck  Life is a life-long learning process.....  and god has nothing to do with it.  Critters survived, and evolved.  If a gene were detrimental, the critter carrying it didn't live long enough to procreate.  It the mutated gene was beneficial, it aided in that critter to live long enough to reproduce.  Lots of evolution is even occuring today.  Google things like Darwin's Finches, pigmy elephants, and of course dinasaurs.  \n\nOne quick interesting thing about moths in England to illustrate evolution:  In the early 1600's, before the Industrial Revolution began and coal producing smoke was a fact of life, a particular moth was mostly white, and blended into the tree bark on which it laid its eggs. The tree bark was white. Occasionally a grey-black one was hatched, but never lived very long -- birds got it.  As the Industrial Revolution took off in England, producing black soot, that black soot began to cover the trees' bark.  In less than 150 years, the white variety was gone, and there existed only the darker mutant.  Beginning in 1950 when England passed anti air pollution laws, those trees began loosing the soot off of the tree bark.  Yup, you guessed it..... the white variant is now dominant........ evolution in action  ,,,,,Helpful????
609185
First off I would like to say that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with humans or creation of our world as many anti-evolutionists seem to believe.  Next, if you deny evolution than how can you explain antibiotic resistant bacteria, insecticide resistant insects, etc, etc, etc.  If you confuse evolution and human evolution then that is your own issue as so many have previously posted.  Lastly, about our own HUMAN evolution, if you think that humans do not evolve, then you believe we are not a living part of this natural world and deny HERITABLE MUTATION.  If you deny all of this and still deny evolution, human or not, then I truly believe you are a lunatic and don't believe in worldly fact.  You might as well say the world is flat and pray to the sun God.  PLEASE DO NOT DISREGARD SCIENCE AS SO MANY PEOPLE DO, LOOK AT THE FACTS (NOT THE PROPAGANDA THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MAY FILL YOU WITH) AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AND ITS KEY CONCEPTS WHICH IS THE ONLY THING WE CAN REALLY BANK ON IN THIS WORLD.
577163
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
118070
There is no evidence for creationism (I used to study it), but you can focus your attention on a particular evolutionary period, specific animal species, adaptability with change in environment, or differences between macro and micro evolution. Professors seem to favor papers focusing in detail on a specific subject rather than a broad subject.
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!
127251
Tell you what.  Spend six weeks in a biology lab with some species with very short life/reproductive cycles--say, drosophila or flatworms--and they'll be your witnesses to evolution.  Is it easy to argue against the existence of something one can actually see happening in front of one?  For example, how do you explain the constant mutation of the flu virus.  It's not a point of theory--it's an observable fact.  So, how does that happen, if there's no evolution?  You see my point:  we don't need "witnesses," because we have real empirical evidence.\n\nBut in any case, it doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe.  There is room both for your cosmology and for mine in the world.\n\nWhat does matter is what is taught in school.  As of yet, right-wing Christian evangelicals have not succeeded in imposing their particular worldview on the entire country by changing our laws into Evangelical Christian shariah, and our schools into Evangelical Christian madrassas, despite their repeated efforts.  Until that time, it does matter that science, not religion, is what we study in science class.\n\nBy the way, try reading other eye-witness accounts to the creation of the world.  Upon what basis, other than your community's belief, is your religious creation myth more demonstrably true than that of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Baha'is, Jains, etc.?  Show me the legitimate, objective, neutral, non-theological criteria that proves your book's eyewitness account more true than theirs, and you might have made a real point.  Until then, not really.\n\n(By the way, any answer that says the Bible has the true answer "because the Bible says so" would not count as a reason outside your faith system.  I'm not saying you're wrong--just that that's not science.)
87668
I myself beleive in evolution, I despise the theory of Intelligent Design and I laugh at creationism however I also believe that everyone has a right to their opinion so here are some of the "proofs" you are looking for. \n\nScience Itself Refutes Darwinism \n   \n• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti6\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.51\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.51\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, 196663\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."50\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.51\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.51 \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.51 \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.51\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 747.6\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\n\n• Living "Fossils"\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\n\n• "Missing Links"\n\n• There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.   Angler Fish Chicken Egg \n  Beaver Giraffe \n  Black And Yellow Garden Spider Incubator Bird \n  Bombardier Beetle
108979
Well true scientist do not say this!  If evolution was true why is sludge still not evolving into humans?? shouldn'g there be all forms from sludge to crawlers and whatever?? Why haven't we pysically evolved any more in thousands of years?? We have certainly advanced in mechanization etc.\nThe Bible, which I believe is The Word of God tells us in the first book of the Bible, Genesis--In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It goes on to tell us how God created this world with land and water etc. and then created man and the every living creature.  Still, Adam, the first man was lonely so God created a woman--a helpmeet for the man Adam and she was called Eve. As a child, before I knew almost anything about Creation I used to wonder why is a cat called a cat?? why is a dog called a dog and not called a cat--I found that answer in the Bible--Adam named all of the living creatures. I used to know a little song about the monkeys, but can't remember it very well other that it ends with I don't know about your ancestors, but mine didn't swing in a tree.
527235
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nBig bang- same thing, 100% fact in science, no evidence of god.\n\nLet me turn your question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
659084
Evolution is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about it. It is a religion. You cannot prove that we came from nothing. Its not even possible. You cannot create nor distroy matter, thats physics. So then how did all this "matter" around us get here. There has to be a creator. The animals may have different variations but they're still the same kind. Everything comes after its own kind. Same with people, there are tall, short, skinny, big. You'll never get a bannana from a fish. The reason you say the earth is billions of years old is because you think if you give it enough time it might happen. God created everything.
181554
You are right.\n\nCenturion: I hope that you only are asking this question sarcastically, in order to give an example of the silly questions that creationists ask, so nobody has to explain that obviously species take separate evolutionary paths, based on their environment, so that the same species in different environments will eventually evolve into different species.\n\nUnknown: What do you mean by a fossil of a creature turning into something else?  That doesn't really make much sense, seeing how all creatures are in the process of turning into "something else" - we just don't know what the future of evolution holds.  Haven't you heard about the recent discovery of the fossil of the "fish" which helps to provide evidence of the transition of animals from water to land?  I don't really know what you mean by saying that there are no "missing links" - there are thousands of them!  I just ahve the feeling that no number of missing links would be sufficient.  Between any two species it will always be possible ask for a "linking" fossil, and since there cannot be an infinite number of fossils, it will always be theoretically possible to say that no missing links have been found.\n\nmamcrackin: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12200044CLXE\nsee my comment above that no number of misssing links will ever be able to "prove" evolution.  If half-man/half-animal were found (and they have been, just look at all the fossils of the earlier human species) creationists would just ask for 3/4 man, 1/4 animal fossils, and then 7/8 man, 1/8 animal, and so on.  \n\nindiebaptist: Her point is that while there would be fish fossils evenly dispersed throughout the layers of earth, non-aquatic animals would be clumped in one layer - the layer during which the flood occurred.  This is not what we find when looking at the fossils in the layers of earth.  The great flood was also gods way of killing a lot of animals who had done nothing to deserve that punishment. by the way, hovind's PhD (from a non accredited school) is in christian education, not biology or any other science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind  \nI really have to wonder where you are getting your facts from.  Darwin wasn't a lawyer, and even if he was, you are citing the work of someone trained in christian education, not science in order to support your belief.  How is that any better?  In any case, Darwin was formally trained to be a clergyman, but studied a lot of the natural sciences on the side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin\nRegardless of darwin's training, his theories must stand on their own merit, as his has done, and not on the credentials of their creator.
122735
I do believe in evolution because that just means cahanges over a period of time but,i don't believe in darwins theory of evolution or the big bang.people who are "scared" of believing in creation are looking for excuses.i don't know about sedementary rock except what my tutor  and teacher tells me.