is there any fossil evidence that shows the transition from one species to another. if not why evolution?
346820
No. 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.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\nhttp:/
738549
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\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.
422256
I have all the respect in the world to Darwin. He is a good scientist, and even though evolution does indeed occur; it occurs withIN one species. So, in effect, an insect can evolve into an 'evolved' insect, but it can't evolve into a fish! Primates might 'seem' similar, but I do not hold them in the same 'species' as humans. In other words, I do not believe that WE evolved from monkeys, and therefore, we have no 'relatives' from the animal kingdom. If primates evolved into anything; I think it is into bigfoot, but not humans.
1048996
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.
1040585
Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: \n\n1. Organisms have changed over time, and the ones living today are different from those that lived in the past. Furthermore, many organisms that once lived are now extinct. The world is not constant, but changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view. \n\n2. All organisms are derived from common ancestors by a process of branching. Over time, populations split into different species, which are related because they are descended from a common ancestor. Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This explained the similarities of organisms that were classified together -- they were similar because of shared traits inherited from their common ancestor. It also explained why similar species tended to occur in the same geographic region. \n\n3. Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time. This was supported by the fossil record, and was consistent with the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species. [This is now contested by a view of episodes of rapid change and long periods of stasis, known as punctuated equilibrium]. \n\n4. The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection. This was the most important and revolutionary part of Darwin's theory, and it deserves to be considered in greater detail. \n\nhttp://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
862177
.  Animals which have a simple evolutionary history are usually soft bodied, and soft bodies animal do not leave good fossils.  It is easy to find analogs for evolutionary steps toward certain animals, the whale for example,  but finding an clear-cut sequence of fossils is difficult.\n.  But, looking at analogs, consider the weasel, the otter, the seal, the manatee and the whale.  The difference between any two steps in this sequence is fairly small, but the difference from one end to the other seems quite large.\n.  There are enough fossils whose ages may be determined that, studied as a group, studied as a group, they demonstrate an increase in complexity of organisms over time and indicate familial relationships.  Bony headed fishes, known only from fossils, were the ancestors of fish like the coelacanth.  Fishes like the collegian were ancestral to both modern fishes and the fish which pulled themselves up from the water on strong, bony fins.\n.  The horse has some obvious ancestors, but the the fossil record of those ancestor becomes weaker as you go back in time.  The fossil record  between shrew like mammals and those creatures which had some horse like characteristics has big gaps in it..
328557
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."\n\nWhich is a fancy way of saying that the stages an organism goes through during gestation (pre-birth) mirror (to some extent) its evolutionary history.  There are stages when even a human fetus resembles more a fish or an amphibian than a mammal, and we all start out as a single-celled organism.\n\nMost species' evolutionary history is educated guesswork based on similar anatomical and physiological structures, compared with both existing organisms and those in the fossil record.  Also, DNA similarities indicate evolutionary proximity -- for example, aside from the fact that all primates look similar (similar anatomical structure) our DNA is closer to that of certain monkeys than any other species.  This strongly suggests that somewhere back in history we had a common ancestor.\n\nBy the way, anyone who discards the theory of evolution because it's "not proven" doesn't know the first thing of how science works and, to be honest, should be ignored.
765050
"Evolution operates on several assumptions, the first being that there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god, so it must be true by default. "\n\nAbsolutely wrong.\n\n"Many people just say that the fossil record proves evolution, but they don't realize that it doesn't actually represent intermediates between two species but dead branches that became extinct."\n\nThe fossil record shows transitional forms, the kind that the theory of evoltuion predicts should have existed.\n\n"Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they sometimes lived at the same time and place as other early humans, like you might see depicted in some drawings."\n\nTrue, but modern humans did evolve from a earlier primate ancestor that wasn't human.  Neanderthals are more like our cousins.\n\n"If changes can happen within species by chance, like different strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human. "\n\nBut the metabolic similarities, the universality of the genetic code, the fact that mitochrondria are in fact desceneded from bacteria, these are all best expained by common descent.\n\n"Not to say that it's wrong, but you can't prove something by inductive reasoning alone."\n\nEvolution is proved by the evidence.\n\nThe below links contain more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable person.
1135377
You have to look at evolution as a series of slight beneficial changes that are passed down through generations.  The steps from single to double circ are unknown to me, but it is more than a single big jump.
725060
Whoa! slow down, there is fossil evidence a transition from reptiles and birds. Most famously Archeopteryx with reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, and mainly unfused bones, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers!! In older sediments, there are theropod dinosaurs with skeletal similarities to Archeopteryx. In younger sediments, there are several fossils with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").\n\nFossils of scales and feathers are very very rarely preserved. Imprints of the Archeopteryx feathers are only preserved because the fossils are embedded in very rare, very fine limestone that used to be used in lithography. It is unreasonable to demand fossil evidence of a transition between scales and feathers. That said, there are several theropod fossils with feathers that have been recently discovered in a fine Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus.\n\nBut sure, every detail of the the transition from reptiles to birds isn't documented. Other than demanding an excessive amount of evidence, I really don't know what arguments you can use, I don't think there are any true ones. But you might find some convincing sounding ones on Creationist propaganda websites. It depends on your audience.
967456
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
851769
We do not find countless transitional fossils for the same reason we do not find countless non-transitional fossils.  Fossilization is a VERY rare occurrence.  We are actually very fortunate to have the number of transitional fossils we do have.\n\nOne reason you do not see intermediary species everywhere is because the vast majority of species don't evolve.  They go extinct.  Evolution is fueled by environmental pressures.  When the environment changes drastically in a short period of time, it's far more likely for species to go extinct than for a lucky member to be born with some favorable mutation that allows it to mate and disperse it's dominant genetic traits into the gene pool.\n\nAt the same time, when the environment changes slowly, over millions and millions of years, the evolutionary changes can be so subtle that it can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine where one species ends, and another begins.  These ARE the "innumerable transitional forms" to which you refer.  Even today there are thousands of different insect species that, to the untrained eye, appear to be the same, but are not.\n\nI recommend a good way for you to sort out the facts from the misinformation would be by reading Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Tim M. Berra.  It's an easy to follow, introductory guide to the basic facts of evolutionary theory.
318151
There are different schools of thought on evolution.  Development of one species into a completely different species (macroevolution in a nutshell) is a ridiculous theory, in my opinion.  AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS STILL A THEORY, NOT FACT!  I hate it that people try to pull off this old theory as fact.\nBut I totally believe in gradual adaptations within a species.  That's microevolution (in a nutshell).
677150
There are several lines which scientist use to prove that evolution is occurring which are embryology, palaeontology, evidence from similar anatomy\nIn case of Palaeontology this is the study of remains of past living organisms. In this case the remains are dug and they show a change from the top going down the earth's crust In this study at the top of the earth's crust the remains of organisms found are complex but going down deeper simple remains of organisms are found this suggest that organism are changing from simple form into complex forms.\nAnother thing that is observed are the remains of certain organism which don't exist by the time and remains of organisms which were not in the inner parts suggest that new species are formed
433812
You're assuming that there is only one way of surviving. Our ancestral ape, from whom both humans and modern apes have descended (contrary to popular belif, we did not descend from the modern apes - we just have the same great-great-grandparents :-)) Now, due to variation, this ancestral species developed into a number of different beasts - some succesful, some not. What we see now as chimps and humans are merely the current state of evolution of two of these branches, both succesful, and both with a long history of extinct intermediate forms connecting them to their ancestor.\n\nOh, and by the way -- the term "the missing link" is a misnomer. It implies that we have not found any solid evidence that humans are evolutionarily tied to the apes. We have dozens of intermediate forms showing this pathway, so there are no links missing. (Of course, what you sometimes hear is that there is no intermediate form between, say, Australopithecus Robustus and Austrolopithecus Boisei and claim that there is a missing link there. But then say that somebody found the fossil connecting the two species. Would that mean that the missing link proponents would stop asking for one? No! Now, we have TWO new missing links - one to link Robustus to the new species, AND one to link the new species to Boisei! Evolution is a continuum, and fossilization is a sporadic and rather 'selective' process, so there will always be something missing from the fossil record. To be intellectually honest, however, you need to not only focus on the gaps, but on the picture the actual fossils paint.)
149545
There are a number of connections between evolution and geology:\n\n1. dating of organisms using geological stratigraphy\n2. fossil records are associated with both\n3. radiocarbon dating can be used in both\n4. geological changes creating new environments for organisms to adapt to\n5. plate tectonics creating new land formations and new climates for migration and adaptation\n6. evolution is used to interpret geological data\n7. geology is used to add details to evolutionary theory\n8. geological information about the earth can describe some of the conditions that organisms had to cope with (ice ages, interglacials, oceanic environments, volcanism, early atmospheres, etc).\n\n\nand I would imagine a lot more as well, but I am not a geologist or an evolutionary biologist!
339373
There are two theories to explain how the Platypus has evolved into what it is today. The first (theory B) shows that relatives of monotremes formed their own evolutionary branch that was completely different from development of both marsupials and placentals. This change is thought to have occurred 135 million years go, the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The marsupials and the placentals divided at some point 135-65 million years ago.\n\nThe Second (theory A) was proposed by Gregory (1947) and was not popular until the 1970s. He said that between 135-65 million years ago, the placentals and marsupials separated to their own way then later the monotremes and the marsupials went their own way.\n\nEvidence for this theory is that the reproductive systems of monotremes and marsupials are extremely similar. The embryos of both have some stage of encased shells in the gestation period. The only difference is that monotremes have the encased shells throughout the entire gestation period, whereas marsupials only have the encased shells for about two thirds of the gestation period.\n\nAre you denying that evolution exists at all?