5What evolution advances does the organism show over the preceding organisms of a leopard spotted frog?
489967
The leopard spots make for a superb camouflage when walking around. Pretty absolutely invisible, in fact, as long as the frog doesn't move.
836673
think about the eye.  it's no good if all you have is an eyeball, yet lack an optic nerve to transmit the light as an electric signal, or an occipital cortex to interpret the electric pulses back into a picture.\n\nso how could the eye have evolved?  suppose some primordial worm starts getting two black dots on its head that will eventually turn into eyes.  suppose they eventually turn into eyes.  he still can't see.  this is not a viable mutation as it has no possible survival value or advantage over the other plain ol' worms.  an eye is no good unless every other part of the visual system is already intact.\n\nso a gradual evolving a pair of eyes won't work, since it will hinder the creature's survival before it will actually help it out.  the only way natural selection favours evolutionary andvancements is through ''hopeful monsters.'' a lizard hatching a bird, a worm with no eyes giving rise to one with eyes in a single generation.\n\nand that's another thing.  what if a lizard tried to grow longer and longer scales in hopes that they'd one day become feathers?  well, there comes a point where this lizard has half feather/scales, on some rather cumbersome, yet extremely fragile wing-like ''hands,'' which it can no longer use for running from predators, yet, it still cannot fly.  natural selection would quickly weed out such a transitional creature.\n\nand that's another thing...where are all these transitional fossils that had to be here?  since evolution took place over millions and millions of years, right?  (the earth's age is actually closer to what the bible says, anyway, as the speed of light is slowing down, and used to be much much faster in the past, according to modern quantum physics and other considerations, [see sources] so radioactive decay used to be much faster in the past, making radio-carbon dating yeild ages far too old)....there actually wasn't even enough time for things to evolve.  the only way evolution could've happened was by hopeful monsters...\n\nwhat about the peppered moth, mike?  what about it?  there's a variation in the species.  what about red heads and brunettes? ;-)  okay, what about the tiny 18 inch tall horses in fossil records?  well, modern, wild brown horses can be selectively bred to get tiny little horses like that.  yes, it takes about 80 years, but it can be done.  (evolutionists tend to call this ''micro-evolution'' just to get a foothold ;-)  )  what's more, regular house cats have been successfully bred with lions to produce ''medium sized'' cats.  this only shows that there is a wide variance in the species, but it's still one kind.  evolution states that one species will change so much over a period of time that it cannot breed with other species that have branched off in different directions.
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.
936352
Darwinian theory can't explain which came first as one didn't evolve from the other. Plants evolved from algae and animals evolved from non-photosynthetic eukaryotes.
995656
Segregate two populations of creatures into separate environments, and see if evolutionary differences between the two populations occur over many generations. That's the sort of experiment the bible thumpers would have to twist logic into a pretzel in order to refute.
1056346
If we assume evolution as by Darwin is basically right. Animals evolve to best survive in a certain ecological niche. In that respect intelligence was an adaptation to survive and prosper in response to certain environmental factors, and our species was the winner in that race to develop. In the same light why don’t all animals develop flight or gills etc. Other animals haven’t developed the same type of intelligence because they don’t need it. The Lingula sp. (a seashell) has existed in its current shape for well over 500 million years, as compared to our ½ to ¾ million years, it perfectly fills a certain niche and has no need to evolve further.\nHowever your question hits upon a salient point. Where is the actual evidence for this species development? We should have examples of inter-species e.g. super smart bunnies still able to breed with normal bunnies to create cleverer off spring. This missing link worried Darwin for his entire life and eventually caused him to doubt his own theory.
653816
Evolution is a theory.
390773
It's an example of a transition between lobe-finned fish and AMPHIBIAN vertebrates, not reptiles.  \n\n(Well, it is a reptile transition in the sense that it's part of the spectrum between fish and reptiles, but it's also part of the spectrum between fish and birds or fish and mammals, it just seems a bit forced to call it a fish/mammal transition to me.)\n\nMore importantly, it shows exactly the type of features scientists predicted it should have, confirming the most common theory about how vertebrates moved onto land.
812763
Here's one of the easiest examples to see, the gradual sympatric speciation of Globigerinoides trilobus to Globigerinoides bisphericus to Praeorbulina sicana to Orbulina universa (incredibly abundant planktic foraminifera) over several million years. \n\nNow what is your definition of a 'transitional form'? (you have left this very vaguely defined). Most specation is allopatric (occurs in a geographically very restricted subset of the population) and  geologically-rapid (evidenced by observations of evolution and speciation in living populations). The very highest geologic resolution available is in the 1000's of years. But due to the nature of the geologic record, most fossil groups have a much patchier record than this.\n\nAt an inter-species level, there are an overwhelming abundance of examples of 'transitional forms'. The fossil record of hundreds of thousands of species shows copious systematic change from one species/group to the next up the geological column. However, as you are a creationist and are new to asking questions about evolution, I will wait to see what your intellectual honesty and integrity is like before I spend time and effort writing any more detailed answers. Paleontologist.
789450
the increased viability might cause the species to be more prolific.  for example, if a mutation occurs that allows the organism to better defend itself against predators, then the mustated organism and its offspring will have a higher chance of survival than the others and thus reproduce more often.  this will cause the trait to spread.  another example that has the same effect is better adaptability to the environment.  if the organism developes a trait that helps attract mates, it will also have a higher chance of having offspring.\ntherefore, an organism with a benefitial mutation is more likely to survive and have offspring, although that does not necessarily mean being more prolific.
846552
evolution has been proven by other means .
530595
One huge misconception about evolution is that the sequence is fixed. The apes *are* evolving. They are changing in response to their environment. But that environment is different than the one our ancestors had 3-6 million years ago. So they won't change in the same way our ancestors did.
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
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.
416340
I would have to answer that you're asking the wrong question!  \n\nThe explanation of how a plant or animal can develop asexual reproduction isn't going to help you better understand incremental changes via evolution; what you really need to understand is how a plant or animal can develop sexual reproduction. \n\nLooking at the first, microbiological life, asexual reproduction - i.e. cell division or 'budding' -  was the first and most essential form of reproduction. It took century upon century for more complex life to develop and specialize; and, for the mechanisms of sexual reproduction to develop and become established. \n\nThe change from asexual to sexual reproduction would indeed have been  massive, but it doesn't follow that it had to be sudden. When scientists look at species and evolution, they will generally say that one species was more successful at adapting to their environment than another. \n\nIt seems that the ancestors of many plants and animals developed sexual reproduction mechanisms, and they were more successful in competing with other animals for food/territory, over an extended period of time. The less successful ones died out long ago.\n\nSo - it may not be totally accurate to say, "reproduction either works or it doesn't." A better statement would be, "evolutionarily speaking, changes in species over time may cause one method of reproduction to become less successful than another."  \n\nHaving said that: there are other scientists who agree that evolution isn't always slow and gradual; they argue that sometimes evolution happens occasionally in a sudden and dramatic way, when one species splits to become new species - generally the new species are created when one population becomes separated by geographic boundaries. \n\nI'd strongly suggest reading the Wikipedia article (linked below) on Stephen Jay Gould for an evolutionary point of view which counters the slow evolution methodologies advocated by Dawkins; as well as the articple on evolution itself - which looks at the development of the understanding of evolutionary principles and their historical context.
1114506
I would think that things gradually evolved over time.  There must have been enough "almost" butterflies to pro-create with the butterfly to have offspring.  So I feel it would be like being in the current of the stream and the stream would have kept pushing forward maybe a little different but in the same general direction.  Just a guess..  Good question.
411785
Genetic information is increased by mutation of the genetic material inside an organism. Natural selection simply removes the less advantageous mutations. An increase is not necessarily an improvement but is simply an increase.\n\nDo not think of one current species becoming another, instead think about one common ancestor to both and then how the mutations occurred over million of years and generations to present very different animals.\n\nCertainly, there is a consciousness that can be applied to the selection. Genocide is a good example of somebody thinking they can direct the development of a whole species. Surely the Final Solution is evidence that humans can think in this way. It doesn't mean we should but it proves that we can.