Can anyone give me a solid piece of evidence supporting evolution?  I men evidence, not theory.?
448028
Check out Ken Miller's testimony from the Dover, PA trial (link below) for examples of evidence supporting evolution.\n\nThere isn't scientific evidence supporting creationism, because it's not a scientific concept.  By definition, science encompasses things that can be tested.
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
547160
The short answer: a lot!\n\nThe long answer:\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 embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photograp
620806
The unnececery killing of any animal is a "murder". Never the less please allow me to add some comments.\n Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past!\n By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
948792
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\nBig bang- same thing, 100% fact in science, no evidence of god.\n\nLet me turn your 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.
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
1104157
Good job!\n The timelines are the key to the fallacies in the Evolution THEORY! Oh, did I mention that it IS a THEORY?\n\n Who created the timelines anyway? Scientists.\nThe reason evolution has to REMAIN a theory is because there is no human eyewitness documentation of the timelines...\n\nThis is exactly why every time an Athiest Scientist sets out to prove the Bible wrong....they end up becoming Creation Scientists! Because, if they are TRUTHFUL there IS NO evidence to support Darwins' claims.\n\nCheck it ALL out on...\n\nwww.answersingenesis.org   ~Ken Ham(from Australia)\n\nwww.drdino.com  ~Kent Hovind (American)\n\nBoth of these men have EXTENSIVE info on this subject\n\nYou can find everything you need there and other
120182
I believe in creation, because I believe there is more scientific evidence to support it. The theory of evolution goes against all known science that we have accepted so far, such as the second law of thermodynamics. Try doing some open minded research on that one, it's pretty clear that evolution can't happen. Also, every evolutionist that I have ever talked to about evolution could not just sit down and discus their theory like true scientists. Instead, I have been called names such as "extremist" and "fundamentalist Christian" (I never meantioned religion or my beliefs, it was assumed), I have also been made fun of, and so on. But I have never been given the chance to really examen the theory. I really believe it's because there is not as much evidence as they say there is. I also believe there is a lot of evidence to support creation. I mean, come on, half of the evidence gathered for evolution could just as eaisly be interpreted to support creation, but that goes against mainstream science, so it is rejected. Trust me, I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I don't believe in evolution here, there are too many. But my suggestion to you is to do some research, and be open minded about it. If evolution has more evidence, go with it, and the same with creation. If God created the world, there will be evidence, we just need to find it. So do some research, there are a lot of good books and websites on the topic (watch out, there are a lot of really bad ones too that say nothing but lies on both sides). Two good ones are www.talkorigins.org (for evolution) and www.trueorigin.org (for creation, and some great responses to talkorigins.com). Good luck, and have fun:)
1154023
That response from gimpalomg was kinda disrespectful. Evolution is a waste of time. It tries to disprove something that cannot be disproved. Evolution is baseless, unfounded and a big scientific hoax to sway believers into thinking that science answers such questions. Evolution is circular reason. You say the earth couldn't possibly be 10000 years old max, I ask why, u'd probably bring up some evolution based theory that attemot to explain away the truth, which is the bible, but for now, I won't be forcing those doctrines down ur throat =D. \n\nThibnk about the bible for a second. The flood would explain so many things that science fails to answer such as the extinction of dinasuars, they're too big to fit on an arc.  Bare in mind that dinasuars are simply reptiles we see tody except that everything had the ability to live longer, if you want to explore that theory look it up because I promised not to use circular reasoning. the flood would explain why fish remains are ound on every mountain peak. It would explain why there was a "nomadic" time period in that time. And sooo obvious to us, it would explain what the heck a huuuge arc is doing on mount Ararat, which by the way was picke dup by NASA satellites. It should be noted that the bible states that Noah's arc rested atop mount Ararat. \n\nLastly, Evolution should not be in text books. The theory is warped an d blown aout of proprtion. I believe there are six major theories that compose the entire science of evolution. Only 1 uno theory hasbeen proved. That theory is microevolution which states that some organisms have the power to make themselves evolve MINOR CHANGES i.e Darwin's discovery of natural selection (longer beaks vs. shorter beaks etc.). This is GREAT, sure, except that the other theories cannot be proven but some have been disproven, there's something they don't always include in text books. Macroevolution which is the level above Microevolution comprises of the theory that species make huge changes over time such as extra limbs, DNA changes etc, again, not proven, even disproven by "vestigial" organs... aren't we supposed to evolve by GAINING other parts, not losing them. Buut scioentiest insist on using vestigial organs as the tailbone... guess WHAT ppl, it's not vestigial; you try walking around without it then try calling ir vestigial ,it serves a purpose. &#92;\n\non to the whole age thing. The earth is more likely to be 10000 years max than millions. According to the evolutionary theory, dinasuars became extinct MILLIONS of years ago. How much time does it take for flesh to decompose? I'm thinking FAR less than a million years. Why then are red blood cells still being found in dinasuar remains? The best answer is that the earth could NEVER be nearly as old as we think it is. I also want to point out thaT the earth is usually dated by ratioactive dating, which, in itself, is VERY unreliable. Research Radioactive dating accuracy and find the fact. The dates are beyond the level of being off, scientists know this. All they do is find a formula which is closest to the actual date even if it is millions of years inaccurate. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. \n\nEvolution is something that has been put in textbooks to simply explain away religious doctrines they feel are impossible. If you do your research like I did, you will easly see that evolution is no more true than Roman mythology\n\nAnd one dangerous thing we seem to be doing. The bible is NOT all symbolic.  That is REALLY dangerous. If i told u that the wings of the eagle stretched far beyond my reach then went on to recap yesterdays events, would you beleive that all of what I said was symbolic. How symbolic can anything be. The bible is literal at times. If you want to read the prophecies in the bible about the establishment of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the aliance os powers against Israel and it literally being sur
255424
Alright I will jump into this. Bombs Away! I know some hot heads will respond but I live in a country where free speech is a given right.\nSo here I go.\nEvolution in and of itself has never been proven. Do the research for yourself. The faith that it takes to believe all of the scattered pieces of science ( which by the way changes daily) fit into one theory is enormous. There are people who wholeheartedly believe that science makes everything factual. It doesn't. Science is like a river, constantly changing even with the basic elements in tact.\nSo for it to be taught as a fact is wrong,wrong,wrong. \nYes,evolution should be tought, but as a scientific theory, and not the final word for all mankind.
550523
Just remember, evolution is an untested, unproven theory.  In fact, it cannot be tested or proven.  If one looks at the scientific method and what constitutes a theory, evolution barely qualifies, if at all.
617128
I think the fossil record is the most convincing evidence we have for evolution.  Granted, it does have a few holes, but the holes aren't nearly as large as the holes in the Bible.  \n\nAnd as far as the comment made by Stand goes - evolution is such a slow process.  Just because we don't see evolution occurring, doesn't mean it's not going on behind the scenes.  I have heard some arguments that evolution of humans has stopped because we don't have the environmental pressures we used to - we use technology to ensure that "everyone" survives.  This is somewhat ludicrous, however, because this theory comes from the point of view of a person living in a first world country.  What about the billions living in third world countries?  Do they have the advantages of technology?  Also, what about the other forms of selection, such as sexual selection?  Truth be told, there are approximately 4.2 "important" amino acid mutations per generation, and since the technical definition of evolution is 'the change in the gene pool of a population over time', we are definitely still evolving - just not in visible ways.  Yet.
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...
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/
837015
hold on, lmme read. \n\nill add my own after.\n\nokay wel lthese arent exactly funny biut theyre true.\n\n1. you defend Ted Haggard, even though hes a Crystal Meth smokin, gay prostitute bangin' hypocrite.\n\n2. regardless of the massive amoutns of corroberating evidence that supports evolution you still claim that evolution has no foot to stand on.\n\n3. you claim that the vast majority of scientists actually beleive in god but, so they can continue to beleive othersise, deny his existence. \n\n4. single celled organisms eventually becoming multicelled organisms is laughable. but believing that god taook the form of a talking, burning (yet nonconsuming) shrubbery isperfectly logical.\n\n\nso yeah...not so funny....i think im gonna create my own list.
1154759
Post an addendum to your question - you don't need a whole new question.\n\nLeoin is obviously blissfully unaware (or more likely doesn't want to hear) that man and ape SHARED a common ancestor and evolution is based on branches not strength lines.\n\nOne more bit of amateur science to try to bolster an obviously wavering faith.
522543
There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution, and none I have seen disputing it at all- There are gaps in the evidence, but there is no evidence directly *against* the theory.  Originally it was thought that evolution happened in a slow, steady, manner-but fossil evidence mounted that disputed that view, and thus the theory was refined, so that now we know it generally occurs more rapidly when there is major climactic change, leaving different environments, creating new ones, killing off of existing species which creates empty niches for new animals to fill.  Most arguments against evolution depend on areas where there is lack of evidence, not on evidence that disputes the theory.  \nThe first evidence was Darwin's observations that birds adapted genetically to different environments, a process that is, in fact, slow and steady.\nThen the geological and physical evidence that the Earth was actually billions, not thousands, of years old meant that there was plenty of time for evolution.\nThen the morphilogical evidence of relatedness.\nThis theory also explained the many vestigial structures found in animals, such as the tiny hipbones in snakes\nIt was well documented and accepted by the early 1900's-THis theory predicted that there would be a close correlation of genetic patterns with morphology, and predicted that there would be vestigial genes in animals.  It also predicted that all forms of life would share certain genes, and that closely related species would have closely related, but slightly different, genes.  All of these predictions were shown to be true.\nEvolution also predicted that structure such as wings would have evolved at some point with a different function, since evolutionary mutations that are beneficial (less than 1 in 100,000) would tend to make small changes, and one could not expect a lizard to bear baby lizards with full-blown wings.  THus, the structures that become wings would be expected to have had some other function, and eventually evolved into wings.  For many structures, such as wings and eyes, these early purposes have been determined.\nRapid evolution, especially under conditions of stress, is seen in bacteria and other one-celled animals.  Because the theory states that it would require thousands of generations to observe evolution in action, only bacteria and other very rapidly dividing organisms can be tested for evolutionary changes that we can actually see.\nThus, the theory effectively explains animal and plant diversity, the predictions that the theory made were shown to be true, the fossil, genetic, and morphological data from the past support the theory, and it has been demonstrated to occur in the only animals that it could be demonstrated in, bacteria.\nFor a theory about how things have occurred over the last few billion years, when we cannot actually "see" it occuring, when it has happened over a span of time far beyond our historical records, this is an overwhelming and nearly indisputable amount of evidence.\n\nThe theory does not predict that animals will become "better" over time, just that any genetic mutation which increase the viability and number of offspring will tend to change the species- Remember, the theory of evolution is only one of biochemistry, genetics, and environmental interactions- It is not a philosophy, religion, or value system- Evolution does not make value judgements, does not plan or think or even care- it is merely a physical process like a rock falling down a hill.