What is the evidences of macro-evolution?
357905
The terms macro- & microevolution was not made up by creationists.  Well, creationists have made up the terms but... the story is a bit more complicated.\n\nIn the beginning, it was thought that there were two fundamentally different processes of evolution.  Since the difference between species was seen in a boolean fashion (you can breed together or you can't, no middle ground), it was difficult to see how new barriers could be errected without some kind of Hopeful Monster or some other kind of unusual arrangement.  Hence "Macroevolution", the special process of evolution that led to new species, separate from "microevolution", the evolution seen regularly.\n\nOnly, with more investigation, the problem went away.  The line between species is far more blurry than can breed/can't breed.  Organisms can be 90% compatible, 50% compatible, etc. etc.  We see this with ring species and grades all the time.  With the "barrier" between species gone, there was no need for "macroevolution".\n\nScientists are ever loathe to lose a polysyllabic monstrosity of a word, so over time, so some have shifted the meaning subtely from "the process of evolution that leads to speciation" to "Evolution at or above the species level."  Nonetheless, you will still see both meanings in use.\n\nYou'll also find another meaning in use, if you can call it a meaning.\n\nCreationists have their own "definition" of macroevolution:  Evolution beyond the created kind.  Of course, they can't define "created kind" in any testible fashion, which makes their definition essentially no definition at all, but nevermind that!\n\nOne thing creationists do a lot is quote scientists saying, "There are serious problems with macroevolution" or "Macroevolution just doesn't exist".  Of course, the scientists mean something utterly different from the creationist definition, but the creationists won't tell you that.  No, they just present their definition, then give you some quotes of scientists saying something else entirely, and expect you to believe the lie.\n\nAs far as evidence of macroevolution, it really depends on what meaning you are using.\n\nEvolution beyond the created kind?  Let me know what a created kind is and we'll get back to you.\n\nThe special process of evolution that leads to speciation?  It doesn't exist, so there's no evidence for it and we don't really want any.\n\nEvolution at the species level and beyond?  We've seen it in real time.  There are hundreds of directly observed examples of new species forming.  The first two links below list some of them.  The third link includes a variety of evidence for evolution more broadly than speciation.\n\nSo, there you go.  Three questions answered for the price of one.  Well, for free, the price of none!  Yay!  You just can't beat this deal!
632
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!
897391
I think that any rational, reasonable individual when presented with the weight of our current knowledge and understanding regards the process of evolution would reasonably have to conclude that evolution is indeed at work on global biology.\n\nHowever, evolution is not just restricted to biological systems.  Consider our collective sense of humour.  Things which were considered hilarious in the very early part of the 20th century (silent movies) some of that humour is now so old to have lost any humourous content.  Why is that?  Because we've moved on and our tastes have evolved to more complex and alternative themes based on our modern life etc.\n\nConsider financial systems.  They too are evolving.  Capitalism is another test bed for the survival of the fitest.  There are winners and losers just as there are in biology.\n\nThere are many more examples.  The reduction of the variety and extinction of languages etc.\n\nThe validity of Darwinianism is only questioned (or rather refuted) by those of a religious nature who have been indoctrinated against the idea and are determined to continue to deny its validity irrespective of the weight of evidence presented for it.\n\nLogic does not play a part in their argument.  Faith and belief without understanding is all that is required.  In my opinion people who carry on about their lives in this bubble of ignorance are neither rational nor reasonable individuals.  They are brainwashed into submission and ignorance.  And sadly they have a tendency to fight long and hard to stay that way.  Most although not all are beyond help.\n\nOne final example of evolution in action:  It has been predicted that science will have eradicated religion within a couple centuries, as increases in the availability of education and the spread of democracy continue.  Given the negative impact that such religious stigmatisation and dogma is currently having on main stream scientific advancement, as far as I'm concerned, societal evolution resulting in the demise religion can't happen soon enough.
183805
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 theoty 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
340615
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
134758
Oh no, not this question again. Why doesn't anybody use the Search button?\nLet me address two separate issues (the first part is modified from another answer):\n1) The pattern of evolutionary processes that can be seen (in the fossil record and living species)can be of two types: \nIn _anagenetic_ (meaning "that generate upward movement") events, an entire population evolves in one direction and becomes so different that at some point the people who study it give it a different name. This is encountered in paleontological research and the decision to separate one from the other is ultimately arbitrary. \n_Cladogenetic_ (meaning "that generates branches") events entail a population that splits into different sub-groups; each of these then evolves independently from the others. We share A COMMON ANCESTOR with living apes, but we have not evolved from them directly. \nOur direct ancestors are fossil hominid species. \nAll the species that are living today have their separate evolution and history; also they all (including humans) share common ancestors from which they (we) have inherited our common traits. And apes have their own ancestors that are closer to them than to Homo sapiens; the fact that apes are our closest living relatives does not exclude the existence of more related _extinct_ relatives.\n\n2) What you're stating is one of the arguments that many creationist use, namely, that change within a species (adaptation, i.e. microevolution) is possible (they are astute in not denying this, because the proofs are overwhelming!), but a species cannot transform into another (macroevolution). \nThis is based on a mistaken concept of "species". Most people think in terms of the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. That is, individuals of each species cannot hybridize succesfully with individuals of other species. However, there is not a single path for the rise of the mechanisms for recognition or isolation that we perceive as the "real boundaries" of a species (see second link for an interesting discussion here at Y!Answers). What the taxonomist calls a species may respond to different species concepts (such as morphological, evolutionary, biological (isolation), paleontological, recognition, etc,), and there are many examples of populations in which speciation (total isolation) is on the way, and there's a thin line between "subspecies" or "geographical races" and valid species (just ask an expert in systematics, which I am not). \nEvolutionary processes are long-term phenomena, and it may seem that there are "evolutionary leaps" from one species to the other. But although there are particular cases of "instantaneous speciation", most of the "leaps" are due to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record. So many populations become extinct or become something else and their former existence is not recorded anywhere! But although the record is fragmentary, life is continuous.\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, I hope you find it useful.
676527
What does the evidence say?
1102973
Not at all. \n\nThe most convincing evidence that led to the acceptance of plate tectonic theory are stripes of magnetized rock that are arranged parallel the mid-ocean ridges and continue all the way to the edges of the ocean basins. These stripes grow progressively older in age as they approach the edges of the oceans, and correspond to past reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Each stripe formed during a period of Earth's history while the magnetic field orientation was steady, and as the field reversed, a new stripe with opposite orientation was formed. Here is a diagram that represents this:\nhttp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecmech.html\n\nOther types of evidence that changed the paradigm from the old continental drift to plate tectonics was the discovery of mid-ocean ridges, which are volcanic chains larger than the Himalayas that stretch along the center parts of each ocean basin. These are active volcanic zones that are constantly forming new oceanic crust. \n\nPlate tectonics is an especially well proven and robust concept. Evidence of past plate movement is found in all parts of geology, from deposits of oil in both Africa and Brazil that came from the same source, to widespread rocks deposits on different continents that match in composition and character. Biological evidence in the form of fossils adds to the story, and plate tectonics is an important complement to the Theory of Evolution because it explains why some related organisms have had the opportunity to evolve differently in isolation. \n\nAs mentioned, the relatively new science of geodesy, prompted by satellite technology, can now measure the movement of continents precisely, and also can measure the changes in elevation of mountains as they rise. \n\nIf you would like to examine the changes in the earth's continental plates as a result of plate tectonics over time, here is a set of maps that show the movement of the earth's plates in the past and projected into the future:\nhttp://www.scotese.com/
653816
Evolution is a theory.
576461
Simple question, simple answer - Evolution, do some reading.
1099264
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."
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.
260278
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
205562
I TOTALLy agree with you in that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.  A belief in God (as depicted in the Bible) has ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for macroevolution.  Similarly, a belief in macroevolution has NO PLACE for God.  \n\nSome individuals try to merge the two, saying that God used macroevolution as THE CREATION MACHINERY. That's like Jews or Muslims saying Jesus was a good man, a great teacher but not the Messiah. THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND.  GOD OR EVOLUTION? MESSIAH OR MADMAN?  The choice is yours.\n\nIncidentally, macroevolution has never been proven, either.  BOTH must be accepted on FAITH!!!!
948721
Evolution is the best explanation we have for how species develop. It is supported by a mountain of evidence and is logical to support until new information modifies or discredits it. Unlike God Theory, which is inviolate, set in stone and supported by nothing more than superstition and delusion, Evolution is fluid and developing.
297539
First, you need to define evolution.  You're talking about micro evolution which has no problems with Christianity.  When you start getting into macro, stellar, cosmic and chemical evolution, we've got problems.\n\nIf the ebola virus evolved, it evolved from another virus.  That is micro evolution.  Macro evolution says that that process is evidence that a virus can turn into a dog over time.  This is where you're getting into religious faith and not science.  \n\nThere are hundereds of different breeds of dogs to include wolves and foxes, etc.  Micro evolution says that all those breeds of dogs came from a common ancestor...a dog.  Again, no problem with Christianity.\nMacro evolution will say that the dogs, cats, birds, snakes, plants, blah, blah, all came from a common ancestor.  That's ludicrous and severely contradicts the bible.\n\nNow, as far as your question about before the fall of man...\nGod told Adam that if they ate of the fruit, they would die.  We know that they didn't drop dead on the spot, so what did He mean?  He meant that they would change world events to bring death into the world.\n\nThe world event that possibly changed all of this was the flood.  When man knowingly was sinful (because of Adam), God had to destroy the world (death from the sin of Adam).  Before the flood, the earth had much different living conditions than we do today.  There was the protective canopy of water around the earth that made it paradise.  It increased the oxygen and air pressure to double, it blocked UV rays and had many other benefits.  This is how people were able to live to be 900 years old.\nIt's possible that viruses and other diseases started forming after that protective canopy was gone.  Add in man's industrial chemicals and we've got a recipe for disaster.\nThere was research done with poisonous snakes.  They put the snakes in a hyperbaric chamber and pumped the air pressure to double.  The snakes came out non-poisonous.  How was the world before the flood?  We can't know for sure, but some amazing scientific research has been done on this topic.\n\nAnother possibility is that many viruses were always there, but was just recently released because we went into the rain forest and started cutting down trees.  If it was locked in its environment before and we released it, then it didn't evolve, it was discovered.\n\nYou should check out www.drdino.com and download the seminar titled "The garden of Eden".  It will explain these things in much greater detail.
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