im constantly hearing that theres proof of evolution, what exactly is that proof?

Question

give only facts not some long winded theory, if i wanted 2 hear a long winded theory id read the bible, this isnt intended to start another argument about evolotion or creationism, i just wanna know what the proof of evolution is that i hear about so much

Answer 1

Science 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.

1. Vestigial structures

One 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.

Another 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.

But my current favorite vestigial structure is the 5th pharyngeal pouch. Pharyngeal pouches are structures that arise during early embryonic development. They form the gills in fish. In humans, the make the bones of the inner ears, and a couple other things. In some species, they make the lower jaw, among other things. Anyhow, all species have them. All species have exactly six. In humans, the 5th one is quite small and doesn't do anything, but it is there, and then disappears. Developmental biologists agree, it has no function in humans.

2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.

Creationists 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.

3. The fossil record.

Although 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.

In vertebrates, there are two main types of jaw bones. One arises from one of the pharyngeal pouches (I don't remember which one), and the other arises de novo at some point during development. In adult animals, the two types are distinguished by the type of joint that connects the upper and lower jaw bones. All existent species of vertebrate have either one or the other. However, there's actually an extinct species that has jaws with two joints, one of each type.

4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).

I 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).

There are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).

5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.

Creationists 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.

Any 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 photographs of actual embryos taken by respectable scientists, NOT on Haeckel's drawings.

I find it rather funny that creationists try to argue that because one scientist was a fraud we should disregard all of developmental biology.

6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.

The main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.

Genetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?

Also, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.

7. Homologous structures.

Homologous structures are structures that typically have similar morphological features and, often, similar functions, and are the result of evolutionary change of a single structure present in the most recent common ancestor of the two species. A homoplastic structure is one that may have a similar function and superficial appearance to another structure but is the result of convergent evolution (i.e. it was not present in the most recent common ancestry).

The most obvious examples of homoplastic structures are things like a human's hand and a gorilla's hand. A more subtle example is the human hand and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve different functions, their bone structures are nearly identical. This is because the bat wing is a modified mammalian forelimb. In other word, the most recent common ancestor of the human and the bat was a mammal that had a forelimb with a bone structure similar to that of the modern human hand and other mammalian forelimbs. In humans this forelimb became the hand. In bats it became the wing.

An interesting example of homoplastic structures is the bird wing and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve similar functions (i.e. flying), they are anatomically quite different. They have quite different bone structures and operate according to different mechanical mechanisms. In fact, the bat wing is structurally more similar to human hand than the bird wing. Incidentally, the bird and bat wings are homoplastic as wings but homologous as forelimbs.

That is just one example. The animal kingdom is littered with examples of structures that serve different functions but have extremely similar morphological traits, and structures that serve similar functions but show clear evidence of distinct evolutionary origin.

8. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.

The point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.

9. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).

These are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.

There are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."


For more information, see the following links:
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml
http://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Or just do a google search for something like “evidence of evolution,” or check your local library.

Answer 2

There is evidence for, not proof. Science does not deal in the realm of proof. It deals in the realm of disproof.

I have a bag of marbles that you can't see through. All of the marbles are the same size and texture; the only difference, if there is a difference, is one of color.

I ask you, "What do you think of the color or colors of the marbles?" You say, "I think they are all red." I allow you to pull one marble out. It's red. I put the marble back in the bag.

Have you proven that "they are all red is true"? Of course not. Indeed, in order to prove they're all red, I'd have to let you see directly into the bag so you can see all of them all at once. The universe doesn't let you do this.

So I let you draw again. Red. And again, Red. And ... until you've drawn 10,000 times. Each time, you pulled out a red marble. Your hand going in the bag gives you the sense that there's MAYBE 100 marbles in the bag, give or take. So 10,000 reds is a pretty good hint that you've got a bag full of only red marbles. After 10,000 tests on 100 marbles, if there was one that wasn't red, you'd have expected to have drawn it 100 times.

Then on the 10,001 pull, you pull out a blue marble.

Was your theory any less valid because you now know it wasn't perfect? Your theory was based on the best evidence. You now have new evidence that suggests, "Most of the marbles are red, but there is at least one blue one. We may continue to accept that red and blue are the only colors though."

This is a refined 'theory'. You still don't KNOW that it's true -- youd have to see all the marbles at once.

As you draw a million times, ten million times, you develop a ratio that suggests 1 in 10000 marbles is blue, even though you seem to notice with your hand that there are only 100 marbles. You can hypothesize that one of the marbles changes color. It is the only mathematically consistent explaination of the statistics and the observations. You could never "prove" that there is a changing-color marble. But the math establishes it with a very high confidence.

That is how science works, not by proof, but by continued disproof and explaination of evidence.

Answer 3

For EVERY supposed fact evolutionists can give you for evolution,there is scientific proof refuting those "facts". I will give you the most important SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN fact that completely blows the evolution theory out of the water.
According to evolutionary theory,starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases,the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of a natural law,the Second Law of Thermodynamics.According to this law,an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity,transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably,with time,run down,becoming more and more disorderly. There are NO exceptions.Contrary to this natural law,evolutionists believe the universe IS an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. IF NATURAL LAWS ARE NATURAL LAWS,THE UNIVERSE COULD NOT HAVE CREATED ITSELF.
It kind of makes you wonder what other natural laws evolutionists are distorting to make them fit their ideas of how all life began. As a matter of fact,ALL theories on the evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability.

Answer 4

Besides the link that Parrot posted, here's one that explains all facets of evolution, including evidence.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Answer 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Also, keep in mind that the theory is supported by almost the entire scientific community. That's not exactly evidence but it's notable.

Answer 6

Look up Darwin's trip to the galapagos.

Answer 7

www.talkorigins.com

Contains info on the fossil record and genetic evidence. Will you read it?

Answer 8

There is no proof.
Horses are still horses.
crocs are still crocs.
fig trees are still fig trees.
the blob that exploded(big bang) how did it come into existance,where did the explosives come from,what was there before it's apperance,most of all how did it form a precision universe?