where's evolutions evidence anyway?
361715
Evolution Forgeries\n\n\nThere is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.\n\n\nPiltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!\n\nIn 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's. These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown man". Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on "Piltdown man", many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject.63 While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man".64 \nIn 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum's Paleontology Department, attempted to use "fluorine testing", a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was not older than a few thousand years old.\nIt was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements.65 In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?"66 In the wake of all this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years. \n\n\nNebraska Man: A Pig's Tooth\n\nIn 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man", in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to hu
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?"
969877
If you eliminate the evidence, there is no evidence.  Highly advanced reasoning.  You just forgot to wipe every living creature off the face of the Earth.  The careful observations of the variation of forms, coupled with the pattern of variation in the genomes of like and unlike forms is a scientific method of demonstrating the relative relatedness of every living creature.
324780
dear,evolution is not true at all.the dinosaurs like earth and every thing here was designed by a super nateral designer ,if evolution was true with this advancement in science they at least would have found little traces that man may become sometyhing else sooner or later.
681839
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?
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
883860
I have been studying Science for the last 40 years and as for the comments made above by my colleague Kuraimizu, I like to point out that in six paragraphs and several hundred words, he has managed to miss the truth completely. What he says is not worthy of someone who has studied science for six months. So, safely ignoring his noises, I should point out that evolution is not a hotly debated subject among scientists – it’s accepted as fact to the point where it really needs no support. Evolutionary biologists and other researchers that investigate evolution do form a community but there is no single website where we all gather to boost each other up. \n\nThere are hundreds of sites that discuss evolution, most are university or college sites that serve their students, a few seek to educate the public, and some are bogus.  If I were looking for honest information, I would avoid blogs and discussion forums and stick to the .edu and .org websites that state their intention without trying to be subversive.  The following short list contains a few sites that are representative:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\nhttp://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html\nhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/\nhttp://explore-evolution.unl.edu/
304551
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.)
1034540
That's just it, it is a theory only and there is NO real proof. And every so often they change and adapt things in this theory when some scientific fact or discovery comes along and begins to expose it. People did not come from monkeys. A piece or two pieces of nothing did not explode and create everything. And evolution disproves itself. It teaches that the strongest species survives. So if that is so why is man still here? Man isn't the strongest species, but he does think. But the original theories say the strongest not the one that can think. So as I said it disproves itself. So now the only logical and factual explanation for existence is GOD!!!
576461
Simple question, simple answer - Evolution, do some reading.
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
63723
unfortunatly there is none for the emergance of species that can be observed. natural selection can be observed and has been but there is no conclusive evidence that evolution took place.
917747
One website says the following:\n\n"The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:\n\n1.     the fossil record of change in earlier species \n2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms \n3. the geographic distribution of related species \n4.   the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations"\n\nIt goes on to explain each of these...
1022720
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...
1081959
whats sad to me is the standard sheeple line of there is no proof of evolution,\n\ni could accept there is not enough evidence to support this in my mind,\n\nthe sheeple mentality is most apparent in the discussion regarding evolution, it shakes out the sheeple,\n\nit clearly separates the men from the sheeple
846552
evolution has been proven by other means .
37204
Neither creationism nor evolution can be proved 100% correct, but one proof of creationism is that the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of fossils (like an explosion of organisms- as explained in Genesis 1 with the six days of creation) instead of many "transitional forms" over millions and millions of years as evolution predicts. I don't know of any websites, but a book called "The Genesis Flood" was very helpful and also one called "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" I happen to know this because I just had to do a paper on this very subject. Good luck!