What are the evidences of macro-evolution?
347672
Absolutely none.  "Missing Link" or "Transitional species or fossils" have not yet been found.  Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern men) have no connection to other species, contrary to what evolutionists would like us believe.  Unfortunately, most common textbooks on biology claims that there are hundreds of transitional fossils that have been found.  These so called evidences are uncomplete and therefore, unreliable.  SOme of the fossils that have been reconstructed are actually mixed bones of various species.  The Peking Man, was found out to be a hoax, being constructed from the bones of a man with arthritis and that of a pig.
230135
There is evidence to say that we are still evolving. Many people believe that our brains have gotten larger.\n\nProblem is that evolution through natural selection takes millions upon millions of years. The human lifespan is nothing next to this. That is why it is so hard for us humans to wrap our minds around the concept of geologic time & evolutionary changes.\n\nHere is the deal w/ the whole monkey issue:\n\nWe did not evolve from monkeys. Biggest misconception ever. Certain groups of people like to keep this myth going b/c it helps their cause.\n\nActually we (human line) branched off millions of years ago during the Oligocene. The line that we think of as apes & monkeys form a different branch of the evolutionary tree. We are not directly decended from monkeys OR apes. They are on different branches all their own.\n\nSome theorists believe (i.e. S. J. Gould) something called punctuated equilibrim in which at certain times in history evolutionary changes occurred in short spurts due to changes in the climate/environment which in turned allowed natural selection to occur. Makes sense --> no change = no natural selection = no evolutionary changes.\n\nWe have seen in the past that some groups of people are naturally immune to select diseases. IF a particular disease occurs in which only 1/4 of the population is immune & the rest die out, then you have a change in the evolutionary gene pool.\n\nNatural selection still occurs today. The peppered moth is one example.
770151
OMG, thanks for that link... those pictures are just amazing!\n\nI already accept evolution, though :)
76598
There is good evidence to suggest that the global patterns are shifting abnormally, but there is also good evidence to suggest that the patterns are not shifting abnormally.\n\nAsk again in 20 years and we'll know for sure.  ;)
307239
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.
724158
Er... the theory of evoltion?  It's just a theory though.  Lots of loop holes.  :)
653816
Evolution is a theory.
225506
For the most part they do not understand the theory of evolution, or the scientific meaning of the word "theory."  I see people all the time who think they can refute evolution with questions like "If people came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embry
168592
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
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:/
1062864
Yes it's a theory. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nNearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.\n\nScientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.\n\nMany of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.\n\nTwo places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.\n\nIn Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.\n\nFurther, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.\n\nThere has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.\n\nBesides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.\n\nThe Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.\n\nResearchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.\n\nThe conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.\n\nUntil recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian pe
846552
evolution has been proven by other means .
973745
There's more evolutionary proof than that:\nHumans have; canine teeth , shed crocodile tears, horse sense,\ncrow's feet, pigeon toed,........whatever.
1097944
According to current theories of macroevolution, humans did not descend from apes, monkeys, or any other species currently in existence.  A large amount of research (genetic comparisons, fossil record, comparative taxonomy, etc.) suggests that humans and modern apes had ancestors in common.  \n\nOf course, we would probably consider those common ancestors to be more like apes than humans.  (Perhaps apes would consider them to be more like us?)  This is not unexpected.  Different members of a species can and do differentiate along different paths.  Some paths are pretty straight: they don't change much over time.  Some paths wind all over the place.  The paths that survive are those that are best adapted to survive in their particular environment.  Humans are so successful as a species because we've developed the capacity to adapt to almost any environment on Earth.  That's evolution!\n\nIf you want to learn more, check out the link below!
930216
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
260246
if you are looking something about tectonic... you will find interesting these sites:\nhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html\n\nbut if you want to read about evolutio on Earth... this link is really good:\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
1154023
That response from gimpalomg was kinda disrespectful. Evolution is a waste of time. It tries to disprove something that cannot be disproved. Evolution is baseless, unfounded and a big scientific hoax to sway believers into thinking that science answers such questions. Evolution is circular reason. You say the earth couldn't possibly be 10000 years old max, I ask why, u'd probably bring up some evolution based theory that attemot to explain away the truth, which is the bible, but for now, I won't be forcing those doctrines down ur throat =D. \n\nThibnk about the bible for a second. The flood would explain so many things that science fails to answer such as the extinction of dinasuars, they're too big to fit on an arc.  Bare in mind that dinasuars are simply reptiles we see tody except that everything had the ability to live longer, if you want to explore that theory look it up because I promised not to use circular reasoning. the flood would explain why fish remains are ound on every mountain peak. It would explain why there was a "nomadic" time period in that time. And sooo obvious to us, it would explain what the heck a huuuge arc is doing on mount Ararat, which by the way was picke dup by NASA satellites. It should be noted that the bible states that Noah's arc rested atop mount Ararat. \n\nLastly, Evolution should not be in text books. The theory is warped an d blown aout of proprtion. I believe there are six major theories that compose the entire science of evolution. Only 1 uno theory hasbeen proved. That theory is microevolution which states that some organisms have the power to make themselves evolve MINOR CHANGES i.e Darwin's discovery of natural selection (longer beaks vs. shorter beaks etc.). This is GREAT, sure, except that the other theories cannot be proven but some have been disproven, there's something they don't always include in text books. Macroevolution which is the level above Microevolution comprises of the theory that species make huge changes over time such as extra limbs, DNA changes etc, again, not proven, even disproven by "vestigial" organs... aren't we supposed to evolve by GAINING other parts, not losing them. Buut scioentiest insist on using vestigial organs as the tailbone... guess WHAT ppl, it's not vestigial; you try walking around without it then try calling ir vestigial ,it serves a purpose. &#92;\n\non to the whole age thing. The earth is more likely to be 10000 years max than millions. According to the evolutionary theory, dinasuars became extinct MILLIONS of years ago. How much time does it take for flesh to decompose? I'm thinking FAR less than a million years. Why then are red blood cells still being found in dinasuar remains? The best answer is that the earth could NEVER be nearly as old as we think it is. I also want to point out thaT the earth is usually dated by ratioactive dating, which, in itself, is VERY unreliable. Research Radioactive dating accuracy and find the fact. The dates are beyond the level of being off, scientists know this. All they do is find a formula which is closest to the actual date even if it is millions of years inaccurate. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. \n\nEvolution is something that has been put in textbooks to simply explain away religious doctrines they feel are impossible. If you do your research like I did, you will easly see that evolution is no more true than Roman mythology\n\nAnd one dangerous thing we seem to be doing. The bible is NOT all symbolic.  That is REALLY dangerous. If i told u that the wings of the eagle stretched far beyond my reach then went on to recap yesterdays events, would you beleive that all of what I said was symbolic. How symbolic can anything be. The bible is literal at times. If you want to read the prophecies in the bible about the establishment of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the aliance os powers against Israel and it literally being sur