So many people believe evolution to be a fact.. but where are the transitional bones..?
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).
409502
You are right.\n\nCenturion: I hope that you only are asking this question sarcastically, in order to give an example of the silly questions that creationists ask, so nobody has to explain that obviously species take separate evolutionary paths, based on their environment, so that the same species in different environments will eventually evolve into different species.\n\nUnknown: What do you mean by a fossil of a creature turning into something else?  That doesn't really make much sense, seeing how all creatures are in the process of turning into "something else" - we just don't know what the future of evolution holds.  Haven't you heard about the recent discovery of the fossil of the "fish" which helps to provide evidence of the transition of animals from water to land?  I don't really know what you mean by saying that there are no "missing links" - there are thousands of them!  I just ahve the feeling that no number of missing links would be sufficient.  Between any two species it will always be possible ask for a "linking" fossil, and since there cannot be an infinite number of fossils, it will always be theoretically possible to say that no missing links have been found.\n\nmamcrackin: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12200044CLXE\nsee my comment above that no number of misssing links will ever be able to "prove" evolution.  If half-man/half-animal were found (and they have been, just look at all the fossils of the earlier human species) creationists would just ask for 3/4 man, 1/4 animal fossils, and then 7/8 man, 1/8 animal, and so on.  \n\nindiebaptist: Her point is that while there would be fish fossils evenly dispersed throughout the layers of earth, non-aquatic animals would be clumped in one layer - the layer during which the flood occurred.  This is not what we find when looking at the fossils in the layers of earth.  The great flood was also gods way of killing a lot of animals who had done nothing to deserve that punishment. by the way, hovind's PhD (from a non accredited school) is in christian education, not biology or any other science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind  \nI really have to wonder where you are getting your facts from.  Darwin wasn't a lawyer, and even if he was, you are citing the work of someone trained in christian education, not science in order to support your belief.  How is that any better?  In any case, Darwin was formally trained to be a clergyman, but studied a lot of the natural sciences on the side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin\nRegardless of darwin's training, his theories must stand on their own merit, as his has done, and not on the credentials of their creator.
294512
There is a tailbone in humans which is redundant, just like an appendix. Appendix has use for animals in digesting raw food. People stopped eating raw food, making it redundant. \nIf you check the ancient drawings, ancient humans had a lot of body hair, but as humans evovled, the hair became less.\n\nTo the person above - Neanderthal, Cro-magnan, Homo-erectus fossils are what you can call a "Transitional" fossil to prove evolution.\n\nTo the person who asked the question - Mutation, adaptation and evolution are inter-linked. Monkeys did not evolve into humans overnight. Or it wasnt a case that monkeys gave birth to humans suddenly. Adaptations and mutation over generations results into evolution. In fact you can say that Mutation and adaptations are preliminary steps of evolution.\n\nTo hutsong - Evolution is how life evolved from primitive life form into the current species. It, in no way speaks how life was created in the first way.\nAlso you talk about experiments in labs have proved that one life-form can not evolve into a different life-form. Heres a  question for you - How many years are these laboratories set up for? If the answer is less than 500 years, then its not enough time frame for any evolution to be seen.\nAlso you are giving links to a website which can is run by christains who are staunch opponnents of evolution not scientifically but religiously. So that has no weight at all. Maybe links to magazines like Science or Nature would have been more convincing.\n\nThumbs up to emilyrose!!
706964
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
684403
As a scientist, I try not to "believe" in something because it is appealing, but rather to consider the available evidence and use that information to reach a flexable conclusion that will change as additional information becomes available. Based on the available scientific evidence, I think it extremely likely that the principles underlying the theory of evolution are accurate. I therefore "believe" the theory of evolution, but not in the sense that one believes in God, but rather in the sense that I can assume it's true as necessary but I'm prepared to accept an alternate version of the theory or even to reject it if there is scientific evidence that is sufficient to warrent this change. \n\nHere's some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution:\n\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 embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the
203026
The more I learn about evolution, the more it doesn't make sense. I am a very new Christian. If you told me a year ago that creation makes more sense than evolution, I would tell you that you were crazy. No transition fossils for any animals "evolving" into another animal have ever been found. I don't deny there is a lot of changes occurring in living things over the generations–it's called variation (also called micro-evolution). For example, there are chihuahuas and there are St. Bernards.  They all have a common ancestor–-and surprise–-it's a dog.  This is what Darwin observed.  The idea of survival of the fittest does not come to a logical conclusion when the animal turns into a different animal.  \n\nThe span of time since the earth “began” keeps getting longer and longer by evolutionists' measure.  Fifty years ago, it was in the millions of years.  Now it's billions.  This keeps growing to make it fit evolution.  Since no living person has ever seen evolution take place, and evolution has never left a record to prove it exists, it needs to have happened so SLOWLY that many generations of people (since recorded history began thousands of years ago) have never witnessed it.  The more evolutionists learn, the more they have to change their estimates... because evolution is not possible with their older estimates.  \n\nThe same amount of faith is needed to believe in evolution as creation.  However, evolutionist have an advantage because it is REQUIRED to be taught in school.  The alternative theory is not even allowed to be mentioned in school.  Schools are even getting in trouble these days by pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact.  People call evolution science, but science needs to be able to be observed and/or replicated.  Evolution can do neither of these things.  What other scientific experiment do you know that has no proof, no conclusive evidence, so many missing pieces, consistently proving itself wrong, but instead of ruling that it must be false, they change the input to make it work. If scientist did this with any other experiment, they would be laughed out of their jobs. There have been many evolution hoaxes created throughout the years so that there could be some “proof” of evolution.  Some of these were found out to be hoaxes decades ago, but are still found in science textbooks today.\n\nYes, creation has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in the Bible.  But evolution also has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in a textbook. Your choice (that is what free will is about), but I would just recommend that everyone FULLY examines both sides before concluding one is right.
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...
1153218
You are Right, Evolution is true.\n\nThose who dont just happen to take references from their Holy Books to seriously. We must all understand that these Holy Books are a matter of faith and should not be involved in the studies of Science. \nScience on the other hand is hard cold truth. The truth in Science is always backed by facts and numbers.
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.
231135
People have trouble accepting evolution for the same reason they had trouble accepting that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. The funniest thing is when people claim that creationism has been proven or is fact. It's a fact just like it is a fact that the world is flat. It looks that way so it must be true. Since we can't see evolution it must not exist. I also find it amusing that people think that it makes more sense that women were created from a man's rib than that we are the result of evolution.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site:  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited:  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to c
924301
These are two good reasons for believing in evolution instead of these silly notions. We come from earlier life, through the familiar process of selection, reproduction, and variation. That earlier life comes from even earlier life. At some point in the distant past there was some primitive first life. It came from inorganic matter. \n\nWhere that matter came from is not clear, but we're making progress on understanding that. The leading contender, I believe, is that it DID simply pop into existence. I think that someday we may even understand how that is possible, but I'm confident that no-one today understands it.
154015
The existence of dinosaurs is a scientifically proven FACT. The Bible is a traditional compendium of narratives spanning many centuries. Belief in the Bible is a matter of FAITH.\nIf you choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then there's no place for dinosaurs. Or you could come up with some laughable (from a scientific viewpoint) and wild theory such as the ones mentioned above.\nIf you are able to understand that the Bible holds so many much more important messages and ideas, and that it was composed in very different historical and cultural circumstances (and some parts are just not applicable today), then you can approach paleontology and evolution without feeling that you're condemning yourself.  \nFaith and science are not incompatible.\n\n------------------------------------\ncanislupus, that was _awesome_ lol!\n\nHowever, I've answered in earnest, I hope the asker is not offended by the joke.
138564
These fossils are from when the flood took place. The water and the sudden pressure perfectly conserved these pieces of bone. We believe in dinosaurs just not evolution. Watch the videw "Answers from Genesis" this guy is excellent teacher
725060
Whoa! slow down, there is fossil evidence a transition from reptiles and birds. Most famously Archeopteryx with reptilian skull, teeth, digits, claws, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, and mainly unfused bones, and a few bird traits like a wishbone, wings and feathers!! In older sediments, there are theropod dinosaurs with skeletal similarities to Archeopteryx. In younger sediments, there are several fossils with more birds-like traits, such as Sinornis and Shenzhouraptor and dozens more (wikipedia "fossil birds").\n\nFossils of scales and feathers are very very rarely preserved. Imprints of the Archeopteryx feathers are only preserved because the fossils are embedded in very rare, very fine limestone that used to be used in lithography. It is unreasonable to demand fossil evidence of a transition between scales and feathers. That said, there are several theropod fossils with feathers that have been recently discovered in a fine Chinese deposit, things like Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx and Beipiaosaurus.\n\nBut sure, every detail of the the transition from reptiles to birds isn't documented. Other than demanding an excessive amount of evidence, I really don't know what arguments you can use, I don't think there are any true ones. But you might find some convincing sounding ones on Creationist propaganda websites. It depends on your audience.
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!
158486
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:\n\n    In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."\n\n    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.\n\n    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.\n\n    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.\n\n    - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981\n\nGould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:\n\n    Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignora
805731
Hey,everybody is slamming you,but don't back down.Evolutionists are beatin' a dead horse.It's over,but it's going to take years to repair what evolution has destroyed.\n"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated."\n\n"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."