Is this evidence or proof of evolution? THree similar advances?

Question

Dinosaur=big lizard

Tiger = big cat

Shark/Whale= big fish

Bear/Wolf = big dog?

Evolution then does not disprove existence of a God/gods. THey make it seem that way though.

Answer 1

No, there are considerable differences in morphology and adaptations between dinosaurs and lizards (including socketed teeth, pelvis structure, etc.), and tigers are not simply giant house cats (there are differences in the eyes and hyoid in particular that separate the two lineages). A shark is a big fish, but a whale very definitely is not. It breathes air, nourishes its young with milk and has a single solid lower jawbone like all mammals - not features shared by any fish. And dogs are actually little wolves, not the other way around.

But you are correct in stating that there is nothing in evolution that disproves the existence of god. There is absolutely no reason that god (or gods) could not have guided the evolutionary process or have set up the physical properties of the universe in the first place in such a way as to include the propensity for life and intelligence to evolve.

The only disagreement between the theory of evolution and religion is that there is no way to reconsile a literal, fundamentalist reading of minor passages of the Bible, Koran and/or Torah with the actual physical observations we can make about the world around us (i.e. evidence from geology, physics and astronomy about the age of the universe, evidence that the Earth is not flat, and fossil and archaeological evidence that discounts the possibility of a planet-wide flood).

Using logic and reason to accept the physical evidence of evolution in no way, shape or form disproves the existence of whatever god you choose to worship.

Answer 2

Both are theory with out proof.. without a control group, nothing can be proven, only speculated,,
Fish to Philosopher theory of evolution though does not allow enough time for all of the mutations to occur necessary, for the awesome diversity displayed in the fauna.Carbon 14 rate of decay is based on an estimate..And geographical evidence has just been analyzed in the last few decades. So there is no more reason it should be taught as fact, then creationism.

Answer 3

Hi. In England there was a white moth that lived in birch woods. Being white made the moth hard to see. The industrial revolution caused some areas of the birch woods to become blackened with soot. The white moths were now easy for a predator to see and they declined. The grayer (as in less white) moths had a better chance and they thrived. No moth made a conscious decision to become grayer. Natural selection did.

Answer 4

Theory of Evolution explained: The theory of evolution is a long list of all the animals that Chuck Norris decided to let live.

Answer 5

If that's your logic, then man through evolution must have gotten bigger.But he's just gotten smarter
Evolution isn't just parallel increase in size of various creatures

Answer 6

That simply proves a lack of language to describe what we see....

And evolution is not defined as something growing larger....

Answer 7

we can no discount evolution all together...things evolve....it becomes sorts like adaptation...like how we think penguins lost the ability to fly....or certain fish can walk on land...but as to proof that we are here from evolution...that i dispute...

Answer 8

No more proof than there is proof for God creating everything.

Answer 9

A whale is not a fish.

Answer 10

that's not proof of anything. btw i do believe in evolution.