Evolution can't be proved. RIght?

Question

If you think you can prove it, anwer my questions and take me to a sight where I can see actual fossils were a fish is gradually turning into a frog or a monkey is gradually turning into a human. No cartoons ok. I need actual photos of fossils.

1) How is it that the celeocanth, a species that has existed for 60 million years, hasn't change one bit. the celeocanth isn't the only example either. THere are also sharks, lizards, and crocodiles.

2) how do cells bond to make bigger creatures. Give me a chemical formula or some solid biological proof that they can. THey had to if everything evolved from a single celled lifeform.

3) how do we know that the archeoptyrex wasn't just some weird animal like the platypus. WHo says that it was a cross between a bird and a dinosaur.

4) how can we be the descendants of bacteria or other single celled lifeforms? If thats true, then every time we wash our hands with anti-bacterial soap, we kill our ancestors.

Answer 1

http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html

You'll go to college if you really want to know the answers to all these questions. But with out the comprehension required in college, we'd be waisting our time & your trying to explain it to you.

Answer 2

OK, let me take these one by one.

your first demand was to be taken to a site where a fish slowly turns into a frog, etc: The way evolution works is not that simple at all. how it works is: in the genetic material (DNA or RNA) of an animal or plant a small mutation occurs usually from low level radiation. If the mutation gives the creature an advantage it will have a greater chance of passing the trait along therefor evolving the species. However, random chance plays a role. (a creature with an advantage might unluckily die and never pass on the trait.

So that being said, fish probably fluctuated around for a few million years making ever smaller steps, there is no way a "animation style" evolution could occur

your next question was about the celeocanth and it stagnation.
there are a few reasons for it.

1. that particular creature is particularly resistant to mutation.

2. just because a species evolves doesn't mean that the base species dies off. (ape to humans for example)

3. there HAVE been subtle changes

your second question:
You are clearly misinformed, cells don't bond. they devide into multicelular masses. humans themselves start as one egg cell that divides millions of times until there is a full human

In the beginning, the single cell organisms would simpily divide and release offspring, then there was probably a mutation that the offspring stuck to the parent cell, they shared nutrients and the advantage began.

third questing isn't relevant because there are no current flying reptiles so that evolutionary sequence doesn't go to prove your point. I'm not even sure why you included it

fourth question: the Bactria you wash off your hands are unlike the bacteria that gave rise to man. Most are dependent on large animals that become their hosts. there were no hosts back then. The evolutionary cycle is rarely still.

I hope I answered your questions, Thank you for your time. I hope you realize that I respect your faith but there is more documented proof for evolution than for creation.

Answer 3

I feel like a pretty in depth explanation was shown above, so I'll just play with some of your questions.

1) I put this out before, just taking the simple statement of evolution "Survival of the Fittest." As long as a species is fit, it shouldn't logically die out. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the celeocanth has not become unfit over time and can still compete with current species, it's existance does not disprove evolution.

2) Look at the literature for this one. If a group of nonspecialists can't prove it for you, that doesn't really say anything about the theory itself. I can give an analogy. People are capable of being self sufficient. They can hunt for/grow their own food, construct shelter, etc. However, if a group of people somehow comes together, they could coexist independently or communicate and live collectively. Responsibilities could be divided up and, as each person does not need to know how to do everything, they can learn to do their task better or more efficiently. However, as they lose the knowledge of how to function on their own, they become dependent on the others and must stay together.

3) Archeoptyrex is one example. And if you casually disregard it, what's to keep you from doing the same to the remainder of the evidence. Just because you choose to dismiss evidence does not take away its validity.

4) This seems like the same question as (2). Do you agree that humans descended from humans? I don't think you can refute that. So when, say, a soldier kills another soldier in a war, is that killing his ancestor?

Answer 4

Given time, and in some cases we have had enough of it, we can prove that things are "evolving" or changing. We can't prove that anarchaeopteryx was anything, except maybe that it's a fossil. That doesn't mean that the fossil record doesn't hold a lot of evidence for evolution.

1) It's spelled coelacanth. Evolution doesn't say things are required to change. I don't change my route to work every day for no reason. But if something happens that threatens my ability to get to work, such as a road washing away, I would change my route. Evolution is similar. When required, things tend to change. Sharks, lizards, crocodiles and coelacanths haven't changed, but neither have they in their current state managed to invent computers, steam engines or anything else.
2) What do you currently know about cells, and chemistry? The way the question is phrased, it doesn't make much sense. Are you looking for the way that cells interact to form larger tissues, or the way that individual cells "stick" to one another. There are many kinds of cells so you need to be much more specific in your question.
3) The debate on archaeopteryx is ongoing. There are still differences of opinion. It is merely and interesting and unusual case that scientists are studying.
4) Why does it bother you?

There is no one fossil that shows a fish turning into a frog. There are a series of fossils that point to a gradual change over millions of years!

Answer 5

No worries, I won't spend too much time on this answer as I get the feeling you won't follow through on it. First off, you don't understand evolution and need to learn that first. Once you understand evolution you can answer your own questions, such as.

1) There exists no environmental pressure on the Coelacanth (note correct spelling) to evolve further. Introduction of new environmental forces to their natural habitat will cause extinction or evolution. See link below.

2) "Left wall pressure." It is impossible for animal complexity to go below one cell; the only direction is towards more cells working together. The vast majority of organisms on this planet are single cell. Multi-cells organisms make up an extremely small proportion of life. See answer 4 for further reference.

3) Dinosaurs were the progenitors of birds. Check with your local museum about the "Feathered Dinosaur" exhibit that has been making the rounds. Too much work? Search "National Geographic" for the same.

4) Look into RNA transcription/recombination and left wall pressures. Best reference I can provide off the top of my head is "At Home in the Universe" by Stuart Kauffman. Don't use bacteria in anti-evolution arguments as they are the best examples of it. Look into MRSA and VRE, see below.

Why settle for a photo of fossils? Check any large museum; I'm sure they'll even give you the guided tour with lectures. They too believe in dispelling superstition, dogma and fear for reason, knowledge and hope.

Answer 6

I just can't believe how dumb you people are. Go and read a real book for crying out loud. Exactly what kind of fossil do you need to see? Can you show me the fossil that is halfway between you and your mother? The archeopteryx was an animal, weird or otherwise: who says it was a cross between anything? Isn't that just what you are looking for as evidence of something intermediate between two known species? As for the coelacanth, perhaps there have been no significant evolutionary pressures on it; you don't think everything is trying to evolve into humans do you? And exactly how much, according to your particularly uninformed set of rules, should it have changed in 60 million years? Above all, why are you all so scared of evolution? It is a fact, like the one that says the Earth orbits the Sun. The church didn't like that either, but you know what, the church was wrong. And it still is.

Answer 7

There are fish today that are walking from pond to puddle and skeletons that are bridging the gap between human and ape. Chemistry is not the proof however the DNA is much closer. We are one genome away from a chimpanzee and closer than that to other primates. All of the links are not there yet if they ever will be, but if your point is creationism, then have you any physical proof at all? None, zip zilch! At least to evolution though a science where fossil proof is important, there are evidences of a gradual change in life form. With Creationism, there is "nothing and then complex intelligent life with language, social and reasoning skills." The child born today doesn't even have those qualities so maybe what you are promoting is de-evolution.
Show me proof, of creation that wasn't in your one book. Show me photos, skeletons, the first grave site. In fact show me the ark, the arc of the covenant, the stone tablets Moses brought down the mountain. Show me the spontaneous declaration from the Roman guards at his crucifixion that substantiate the text even.
Show me that this supernatural power that inhabits can show compassion and love to his own creations.

Answer 8

OK - Here is the bad news for you -- step-by-step:


-- The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent.

-- The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others.

-- The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). The evidence from fossils is overwhelming.

If we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight.

If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates).

There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have.

Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just -- appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

Sorry if these obvious truths shake your religions faith,

Answer 9

LEt's really get down to the point.

How come Chinese don't get Sickel Cell Animia?

How come American Indians don't get Ty Sachs Disease

How come you don't find an Afrikani with naturally blue eyes and red hair.

How come you don't see black babies born naturally in Asia, without a black family member.

How come NO american India has every made a blonde blue eyed baby between 1600 and today, without inbreeding with whites.

How come not African has ever made a blue eyed blonde?

How company there are no Blonde Chinese?

Is evolution RACIST

Does evolution pattern itself after Hitler's MAster Race naturally!

Does nature SEGREGATE!

If GENETICS and EVOLUTION hold trues over a 500 to 1,000 year period RECESSIVE and DOMINANT traits must show!

Take a look at interbreeding between Blacks and others, between Chinese and others. You see a WHOLE GAMBIT of colors, shades, hair.

Obviously according to Evolution and Genetics we are not ALL brothers and sisters. Distant cousins, maybe, but we are not all the same under the skin. Eveolution, Genentics naturally shows there is SEGREAGATION and no extremely recessive elements that show kindredship with outhers outside the geographical area.

Answer 10

Why are you asking these questions of us? Surely, you can find better information from more veritable sources.

There is all sorts of evidence behind the things you are saying, and your reasoning behind it is all speculation and generalization. "Well, if the coelecanth hasn't evolved, NOTHING has evolved!" "Cell bonds are so little! They can't make big things!" "Maybe the archaeopteryx is just another animal! It wasn't a transitional animal!"

You don't know what you're talking about, and it is OBVIOUS. Everything you're going on about is just you refusing to believe in the evidence we have given you-- because you don't WANT to believe in it.

If you don't want to believe in evolution, no amount of evidence we give you will change your mind.

Answer 11

creationism can't be proved. At least there is evidence supporting the possiblility of evolution. There's no proof for creationism...and don't mention the bible because nothing in that piece of fiction can be substantiated.