why is there no recent evidence of evolution?
971103
You've got a few misconceptions there.  I'm going to assume you are really asking a question and not just fishing for agreement, so I'll try and straighten them out.\n\nFirst of all, IF man evolved from other primates, it would be more proper to say that mankind arose from -A- primate.  To draw an analogy, if you build a house out of lumber from trees, it doesn't mean there are no trees left in the world... only the trees you used to make your house are gone.  So it is perfectly plausible for monkeys to still be around even though something else might have evolved from them.  Populations become isolated and develop different traits all the time - try comparing someone from China, Iceland, and Africa some time.\n\nSecondly, I don't suspect any evolutionist would say that man evolved from monkeys.  Instead they would suggest that they had a common ancestor, and both man AND monkeys are different from that ancestor, just in different ways.\n\nAnd last is the question of transition.  And transition implies you're going somewhere.  Since none of us know what life will be like a hundred million years from now, it may very well be appropriate to say that EVERYTHING now is in a state of transition from what it used to be from what it will be.  Looking for 'half-fins' and the like is a straw-man argument, though there is certainly no dearth of vestigal organs and DNA around in most species, if you only look for it.\n\nI respect your desire to dispute the validity of evolution.  Most true scientists WELCOME having their theories challenged - it can only make them stronger and get rid of bad ones.  But if you're going to tilt at a windmill, make sure your lance is pointed in the right direction!
1125496
There are thousands of fossils that are similar to each other, just like there are many similarities between the the human skeleton and a frog skeleton, but there is no fossil evidence for evolution because it didn't happen.
1127502
I believe in myself.  As for evolution, in a nutshell there are still monkeys because the group of monkeys we came from were forced to evolve due to a new enviroment and monkeys didn't have to evolve because their enviroment has pretty much been the same.  Understand though that this didn't happen in a day or seven but over a few million years, its a fact sorry but that doesn't mean that there isn't a god.
487098
There is some of that.  However, there is just as much bashing of various faiths with no knowledge, too.\n\nThere is certainly no conclusive evidence of evolution.  Not even close.  Evolution has never been able to explain how supposedly "closely related" species have completely different numbers of chromosomes.  When we mate a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, which DO have the same number of chromosomes, and ARE "closely related" enough to mate, we get sterile offspring.  How in the heck did apes, chimps, and man all come from one ancestor?\n\nI've done a bit of research, and I still reject evolution.  However, I am smart enough to understand that there ARE real reasons why so many scientists have come to this conclusion, and try to always be fair to both sides.
622709
Because of the continuous weathering of the sedimentary rock formations over the millions of years. Fossils are rare to begin with and many have been lost. We are still continuing to find additional evidence all the time, though.
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!
166140
Evolution is still happening today, so it is observable. However, it takes many generations for any adaptation to become part of the genetic code of a species, and therefore, only in a great many generations will there be any concrete proof. Scientists do not claim to have proved it, at least, none of the scientists I've consulted on this matter. They say there is a lot of evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution and none to disprove it, which I believe to be true. Because of this, it's a theory that has ceased to be contested. However, it is still a theory, with lots of evidence in it's favor but no proof.
98203
>>>>>They have never found any.\n\nThere are many transitional fossils.\n\n\nThe only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.\n\nTransitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.\n\nThe following are fossil transitions between species and genera:\n\n   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.\n\n   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).\n\n   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).\n\n   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).\n\n   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.\n\n   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).\n\n   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).\n\n   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).\n\n   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).\n\n  10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).\n\n  11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
264365
Because we didn't evolve from apes we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with other apes (we are actually a species of ape, but you were probably using the term in the common, not the scientific, sense).  That common ancestor no longer exists.\n\nFor those who say that evolution is false:\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 ca
320406
There are many things that support the theory of evolution.  Mainly, the fossil record and the fact that you are here, though if natural selection holds true, you will not be working in any fied of science any time soon. \nThe tide example that you state does not disprove evolution because it's false; the amount of water in the world has not change as you suggest.  There is no reason to believe that any change in tides would work increasingly to cover the earth with water.  There are fluctuations in the level of the seas that follow geological and thermal events over the course of centuries and millenia, like the ice ages. In second place, evolution is not about the age of the earth, it's about natural adaptation to the environment. Examples to prove it can be found anywhere in nature.  Sea iguanas in Galapagos are one of the best-known examples of adaptive development.   If there was no evolution, these iguanas would be terrestrial like all of the other species of iguana in the world.  But they're not, they have evolved an adaptation to marine environments.  Think of that as a microcosm of what happens in the rest of nature.\nWhy do we have a residual tailbone?  Why do whales have residual fingers?  We don't have tails and we don't need them, but the tailbone is there...  If someone meant for us to have a tail, they would have given us a tail or none altogether.  The fact that we have a bone structure that serves no apparent purpose but to cause pain when you fall on your but and break it proves that there is an ongoing process that we are a part of.\nEvolution does not exclude creation, it just makes creation dynamic and alive at a much broader scale.  That creation cannot be a process driven by biology instead of a stagnant  pile of events is not written anywhere in any holy book.
866041
I think some of the answers confirm your argument. There seems to be ignorance of the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. That evolutionary change in species occurs is definitely not in question-there is no doubt whatsoever based on the extensive fossil record and physiological similarities between species-so those who make a blanket statement about evolution not being a fact are talking rubbish. Only the theory-the mechanisms involved are subject to any conjecture although there is no competing theory to challenge natural selection so that is accepted as fact by 99% of biologists. Creationism has nothing to contribute to science. It can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
912794
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
168123
Physical evidence? As in the sort of evidence that shows evolution is true (fossils, modern animal morphology, distribution of modern animals, DNA, etc.)\n\nNone.\n\nBut, if people want to believe in a god. Or two. Or several. They have that right. And the vast majority of people who do believe do not need the sort of scientific proof to be certain they are right.\n\n\n(And just a comment above, the world and life are very much NOT put together perfectly. Just for starters most of the DNA we have is not good for anything, only a small amount is for genes. This makes sense from the pov of evolution, but not from a instant creation. Unless god is sloppy.)
1000708
we don't even need fossils to prove evolution, we already have proof that things evolve. like the flu.  if the flu wasn't evolving then there would be only one vaccine for the flu. because it is evolving every year there is a flu shot (for those at risk) to the new strain.  people only object to evolution for religous reasons.  \n\n//\nin response to mr. onyxfire:  the reasons nominated for dissproving evolution seems to say that evolution should eliminate diversity.  and that simply isn't true. when there are alot of the same species in an area they compete for the same resources.  if a mutation came along that was different from that species it would actually be at an advantage because it might not be competing for the same resources.  and that is at the heart of diversity.  having diversity means that some animals will develope certain attributes more keenly for example people hunting for fruit during the day value eyesight more for finding their quarry where as at night bats looking for fruit can't rely on eyesight and so they develope a different specialized set of organs.  i hope that helps you understand why i think your points are incorrect\n&#92;&#92;\nno scientific theory which attempts to understand our world has by necessity precluded the concept of god.  none the less religous theories feel compelled to preclude any acceptance of science so it's my belief that they are quite the dumbasses (not all religious but certainly alot of the policy makers). we all know how well that galileo thing panned out for them.
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
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
355402
evolution is a slow moving process. too slow to observe within a lifespan or possibly even a few generations. it could take tens or hundreds of thousands of years for it to happen.