Can anybody offer evidence of evolution?

Question

Don't name the following though, because they ended up being mistakes or hoaxes.
Piltdown Man - A deliberate hoax. Ended up being a ape jaw attached to a human skull that was stained to look old.

Java Man - The discover later rejected it stating that a human & ape were just found in proximity.

Pekeing Man - Tools & human bones were found near the apes whose brains they were eating (monkey brains are still eaten in China).

Nebraska Man - An entire person (and family) was envisioned from a single tooth... a tooth that later proved to have come from a pig.

Lucy - Reclassified as an extinct ape.

Ramapithecus - A jaw & teeth were eventually dismissed as early human in origin (an Orangutan).

I don't get it. Scientists keep coming up with evidences for macro evolution and then they later take it back.

Answer 1

Evolution is a theory. It is what science is all about. Religion and Science can go hand in hand. I believe the biblical creation story of 7 days to God is actually like a million years to us!! god gave man intellect to study the creators creation therefore study God's marvelous works. peace.

Answer 2

The Java man skull cap is clearly neither human nor ape. The confusion arises from other bones found nearby which were erroneously associated with it. Have a look at Turkana Boy, a nearly complete skeleton of a human ancestor, which has a similar skull shape.

Peking man skulls were NOT monkeys - they were in the neighborhood of 1000 cc's in capacity, too big to be ape or monkey.

Ramapithecus is not a modern orangutan, but probably an ancestor species.

If the fossil record merely showed random extinct creatures, it would not support evolution. However, if you look at fossils of similar types in chronological order, there is a clear progression toward the modern forms; that is, early forms look less like their modern relatives than later forms. This is just what you would expect if forms were evolving.

Answer 3

So far, I haven't seen any proof of evolution posted in the people who have tried to say "here's the proof." But let me explain, because I want to be clear: I believe that the asker is looking for proof of "macro-evolution" meaning evolution from a single-celled organism to a multi-cell organism like humans, cats, and watermelons--proof that all life on the planet had a common ancestor.

Many of the "evolution examples" given (tall giraffes and short giraffes, different variations of flu virus) are simply variations within that type of creature, but it is not even close to proof that those creatures all had a common ancestor. To make matters worse, the "tall giraffe and short giraffe" is a theoretical example and has never been observed.

I love the "Lucy" example! Look, the bones for "Lucy" were gathered over about a one mile radius--did she explode in the air and die? And further, how would we know that "Lucy" gave birth to anything?

One poster said the following: "Highly educated scientists have....vs. those who have faith in a book written before the earth was known to be round." At one time, "highly educated scientists" thought there were four kinds of elements: fire, water, wind, and stone. "Highly educated scientists" once thought that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, and "highly educated scientists" thought that you could cure a person by bleeding them to death.

Another poster said "Ants. There is no way that your god would have made such a small insect. It must be evolution." Why couldn't God create a small insect like an ant when He created thousands more?

Some arguments actually support a common creation and common designer! One evolutionist said: "Just look at the same species from two or more distant locations," as if to say that the exact same animals "evolved" exactly the same way very far apart. I see that as a common designer made the same animal and spread it all over the earth.

That poster continued "A simpler approach would be to consider the evolution of bacterial agents or viruses" but this argument is simply stating what I said above--simple variations, but no evidence of all life on the planet having a common ancestor.

But my favorite is the "vestigal appendage" argument: "Yes, kids are now being born without appendix and tonsils. Nature must have seen than we either do not want them or that we do not need them and evolved us to a more efficient state."

I have two answers to this statement:

1) Maybe kids are being born without an appendix or tonsils--but they are still kids! They are still human. Show me a human giving birth to a cow and you got my attention.

2) The "don't want or need argument" I've heard many times before, although usually directed against a tail. The argument is that we don't need a tail anymore so nature took it away. I'm telling you, there are many, many times I wished I had a tail! But if you insist, then I will personally pay for the surgery to have your tailbone removed.

And Leviathan posted "You see thing evolve into different branches thats why there are humans and apes and different types of primates" ... but that's the problem, no one has ever actually "seen" it happen!

Answer 4

I am not a scientist; I an a Spaz who wastes my time surfing Yahoo answers. If I wanted to know the answer to a really, really important question I would call...college professors...scientists...National Geographic.

On the other hand, Lucy was reclassified by ONE scientist (a Leakey who was peeved he didn't discover it himself), whose reclassification was discredited. Austrolopitecus Afarensis, both gracile & robustus, are still tops in the evolution hit parade. Peking man is a variant of Homo Erectus-as is Java man; more than one java man site was excavated by different people, so if one discoverer disavowed it, oh well, there are still other Java Men. Homo Erectus is still very much in favor. At ONE Peking man excavation out of DOZENS there was a misclassification. One out of DOZENS.

Anyone who knew anything about this topic would not mention Piltdown Man, or "Nebraska Man", which involved one whack with an axe to grind about where man evolved.

But you know what? I could go on about this forever (we're not even bringing up animal evolution here, which has a much better & more complete evidentiary record than human evolution), but no matter WHAT I (or anyone else) said on the topic, you would not listen, you would not believe it, because your mind is slammed shut like a bear trap.

Which is OK. Excuse me, I'm off to waste more time. Have a nice day.

Answer 5

For God's sake, don't you read? Of course there is evidence of evolution. Just look at the same species from two or more distant locations. A simpler approach would be to consider the evolution of bacterial agents or viruses. As for humans, the big question is not whether or not evolution exists but the length of time the evolution process takes. I think you are seeking proof of a religious nature rather than a scientific one. If so, go to a dictionary and look up the word faith.

Answer 6

Ok. Let me use Darwin's theories in a way everyone can understand.

If there are 2 (M and F) tall giraffes and 2 (M and F) short giraffes, and there is 1 tall tree that only the tall giraffes can reach... eventually the short ones will die and the tall ones will live. Their genes will be passed down and there will be no more short giraffes.

You're thinking:
This situation couldn't really occur. In answering I must rely on Genetics and Real life so bear with me:

If in fact there were some short trees and mostly tall trees, the short giraffes survival rate would drop, not totally disappear, but the tall giraffes would proliferate until they were in the majority. Say that tallness is a gene with two alleles(varieties) Tall (T) or Short (t)
There is a giraffe whose mother was tall and father was tall he would be
T T
Say there is a giraffe whose mother and father were both short he would be
t t
(Keep in mind T is dominant over t and therefore by the laws of Dominance(look it up) Tt = Tall)
The two giraffes have babies. The choices are (by Law of Independant Assorment Look it up)

Tt So they will all be tall. If those giraffes mate with short giraffes (Which is unlikely because most of them would die from no food, but even IF they didn't)
T t and T t can make
1/4 of the litter short (tt)
and 1/4 of the litter Dominant Tall (TT)
and 1/2 the litter Hetero Tall (Tt)

As you see the Tall, more equipped, Dominant giraffes live and proliferate to EVOLVE or adapt to their surroundings GENETICALLY .

Proof?

Answer 7

The information you have given is wrong except for Piltdown man and Nebraska man ( which I have never heard of but as Nebraska is in America where there is no evidence of hominid evolution at all) There is so much disinformation here I suspect you of propagating a hoax. As regarding evolution... where did the bird flu virus come from...did god make it? . How come our DNA is less then 2% different from a chimpanzee and we are genetically closer to chimpanzees then to they are to gorillas. How about the new species of 'Hobbit man' found in Indonesia very recently. Where did the AIDS virus come from... Did god make it?
How about all the fossils in the world eg Archaeopteryx.. almost a bird but very close to a reptile too that is evidence of evolution. In fact evolution is proven beyond doubt to all except religious fundamentalist YEC types who just don't want to know because it goes against the fairy tales they base their ignorant miserable lives on.

Answer 8

*sigh* No one ever claimed that Lucy was necesarrily a human, but an ancestor that modern man evolved from. Hell, the fact that Lucy is an extinct ape further supports evolution. Appearently whatever species Lucy did belong to did not have favorable enough traits to survive, and thus died out, while the specimins of that species continued to pass their favorable traits along into what is now modern man.

Answer 9

You see thing evolve into different branches thats why there are humans and apes and different types of primates.People only believe in a god because we have the abilitty to racionate wich we dont use too much you see god isnt real its just a name or symbol used to try to explain what no one can wich is life itslef.Besides theres no proof of a creator the only thing that tells us that there is a creator are books but if none of them existed right now the non-racional idea of something all mighty in heaven wouldnt exist.Its all ideas to give meaning to what we are where we come from nothing else its all metaphores that where taken too seriously because of ignorance.

Answer 10

Apparently not, since you're counting refutations from creationists. Creationists will refute every single find that supports evolution, always have, and always will. So if those refutations are valid in your eyes, no, there's never going to be any evidence. What I wonder is, why did you ask the question in the first place, if you've already made up your mind what the answer is?

Answer 11

They say dog is man's best friend but over the years a dog is still a dog.
There is no evidence to support the lie of evolution but there is evidence to support the fact that there is really a God, & only fools would disagree with it!