Does anyone have legitimate, physical evidence to support evolution???

Question

Transition Fossils don't count- there's no proof the came between two species
Carbon Dating doesn't work-The guess the amount of carbon there was at that time.
Rock layering Dating doesn't count-They've found petrified trees going through several layers.

What this first and tell me what you think

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2822588848596167687&q=Kent+hovind

Answer 1

Hey Bro..... only in their dreams...( but they spout it as fact )

I think they need a life....maybe they could 'evolve' one.

Answer 2

Evidence for evolution is found across the spectrum regardless of whether you "count" it or not, it is supported by other fields of science like geology, astronomy, and physics. Controversy over evolution is almost exclusive to the general population, and then only to theists who take Scripture at it's most literal interpretation. Time magazine once polled 485,000 earth and life scientists and only 700 believed that Creationism was scientifically sound and the method for speciation. Note that these are actual scientists, not lay-persons like you or I, and certainly not like Dr. Hovind, who doesn't have a doctorate in science, but in education from Patriot University who is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge.

I've watched the video and it appears to me that the man plays fast and loose with his brand of "science"

He lumps several fields of science in with evolution.There isn't a biologist out there that will tell you the big bang theory has anything to do with evolution. For that matter the origin of life, abiogenesis, doesn't fall under evolution. He makes often use of the Strawman Argument, especially his example of Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki (and the above examples). I could go on but the point I'm trying to make is that Dr. Hovind is not the man to go to if your looking for actual science, even Creation Science, leading Creationism sites like answersingenesis.org list many of his examples as arguments not to use when making a case for Creationism.

If you truely want to understand the evidence for Evolution it takes work. If going to sites like talkorigins.org, whose articles are footnoted by actual scientific, peer-reviewed, papers isn't enough for you, take a few college level courses in biology, actually understand what you don't now believe before deciding.

Answer 3

So, there are many things not counting. I guess you wouldn't believe the FACT of evolution even if we came with all scientific proofs avalaible (including comparate anatomy), and that's supposing you have a deep knowledge on chemistry, geology, zoology, botany and physiology (and I don't think it's the case). So why waste time?
Besides, how can you decide which evidence count and which not? You should let scientific community know, they all have been losing so much time and effort studying things not counting.

Answer 4

Find out who owns any cell phone number!

This cell phone number lookup will give you owner information about a phone number for free. Search for a cell phone number today to begin your free trace!

Discover the best site Reverse Phone Lookup - http://phonedetectives.co

Results include name, address, carrier, and other details when available. Your search is Private and Discreet.

Reverse Phone Lookup area gives you additional access to millions of public records, including:

+ Find out the source of a harassing ("prank") caller
+ Research a number that appeared on your phone bill
+ Locate an old friend from high school or college
+ Research "missed calls" on your caller ID that you don't recognize
+ Verify an address
+ And more...

PhoneDetectives - http://phonedetectives.co

Conduct an instant reverse phone lookup. 100% Confidentail and Instant Results!

Answer 5

Mutations is thought to be one of the contributing factors to evolution.
In the bacterium E coli, there is lac gene for using lactose as a source of carbon (food).

Now, consider an E coli strain having nonfunctional lac gene.
Frequency od changing this non-functional gene to functional one by random mutation is less than 1 in 10 to power 15.

When same strain was forced to stay in a medium which contains lactose as the only source of carbon, the frequency of this change from lac - to lac + improved to 1 in 10 to power 8.

This is published in a research paper in scientific journal. This research proves that changes in the living beings take place in response to environmental stimuli; which is the basis of evolution.

Answer 6

How can you ask a legitimate question and then preclude two of the most obvious proofs? It like you asked someone to prove that gravity exists, but the fact that things fall when you drop them doesn't count because you can't see the gravity.

The whole point of sciences is that you don't get to preclude proofs just because they disagree with what you claim.

Answer 7

certainly.
have you ever looked at a biology textbook printed in an advanced society?

firstly fossil record is used to prove practically,
do you believe in plate tectonics?
then you believe in the fossil records

carbon dating is for things that are only thousands of years old
you use argon dating for anything older.

also, finding the same spices in more than one level of rock is not any way to disprove evolution,
look at the cockroach!
it's been around for hundreds of millions of years, and hasn't changed all that much!

finding the same thing in the same place for a few thousand years... big whoop. look at china. humans have been hanging around the same rivers for ten thousand years!

also, there is no way to prove something in science.
one can only disprove things

what do you suggest instead of evolution?

Answer 8

Once again, I'm gonna have to call you on this. The first point is that many of those quoted are not qualified to comment on evolution. Mathematicians, Physicists, philosophers, etc are simply not skilled in genetics to talk about such a concept as Evolution. Take those who are. Michael Denton for example made his comments over 20 years ago and since then the gaps that he refers to are still be used as fact by Creationists. Dr Colin Patterson is blatantly misquoted and you will find letter from him attacking the misuse of his quotes by creationists on the internet. Lord Solly Zuckerman is more a zooologist and not an evolutionist as you state (although I suspect you did a cut and paste job from a creationist website). His research dates back to the 1930's and he wrote books in the 60's and 70's. NOW THIS IS GETTING EMBARRASSING FOR YOU because this is typical Creationist strategy - either misquotation or quoting research that is decades out of date. And you talk about reasonable. But I will continue a bit further because believe or not am getting a kick out of EMBARRASSING YOU and your lack of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE or even you inability to CHECK "FACTS" before you use them. Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose is not so eminent and indeed the only refernce you find to him is on, you guessed it, creationist websites. "Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History: The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation." Look at what is said here. Maybe the words are enough to fool creationists but this is simply saying that there is no competitor to evolution. It certainly is not denying evolution. Thomas Barnes, Ph.D., physicist is not reputable and even appears on websites alongside our famous Dr Humphrey's, laughing stock of the physics community who made basic mathematical errors when formulating his starlight and time theory for a young universe in line with the big bang, who has been criticised by the whole physics community who titter at his name and yet Creationists drag these people out as evidence of defection. These people WERE CREATIONISTS FROM THE START. THEY NEVER WANTED TO BELIEVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE BIBLE. Mathematician P. Saunders and biologist M. Ho, again it questionable as to whether a mathematician can comment on such a topic. Even a biologist does not mean geneticist or expert in evolution. THIS ONE IS GREAT Pierre-Paul Grassé born 1895 and died 1985. He is hardly a CURRENT DEFECTOR FROM evolution. He NEVER BELIEVED in evolution. He was never an evolutionist as the website from which you did your copy paste states - yes I found the website. The website is LYING - IS THAT CHRISTIAN? TELLING BLATANT LIES - IS THAT CHRISTIAN? IT GETS BETTER Arthur Koestler was born in 1905 in Budapest. He was interested in the paranormal, mysticism and judaeism. He was not scientifically trained and was one who believed in Jung's philosophy. I wonder if the Christian website would continue to use his views if they knew he COMMITTED SUICIDE with his 3rd WIFE? Lyall Watson, the man who tries to explain the supernatural with biology. AGAIN, NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST. NOW I HAVE EMBARRASSED YOU ENOUGH. YOu should know that I will call you on these lies and misinterpretations. It strikes me as strange that Christians JUSTIFY LYING in order to serve a purpose of recruiting numbers or keeping their numbers. It makes no sense. I hope your God is watching. What is even more hilarious is that YOU BELIEVE this and call yourself reasonable.

For the best answers, search on this site https://smarturl.im/aDACS

Answer 9

DNA......you can see evolving traits in genes. Evolution being real doesn't make God any less real. Would you believe in evolution if it didn't make you question God.

Answer 10

Yes !

Have you seen Sylverster Stallone? It is the proof man came from the monkeys

Answer 11

Direct answer to the question: No.
What I think: Why do we care in the first place?