What evidence exists which supports evolution?

Question

I am looking for specific evidence here. If macro-Evolution is (almost) indisputable, as people some say it is, than there should be plenty of evidence supporting that position for you to point me to.

You'll notice that my question says nothing about man from apes.

Also similarities in DNA structure, development, and similarity of function support the idea of a common creator since it is quite possible that such a creator would use the same parts in order to get the same or similar function in various species. For example, different models of cars from the same manufacturer share many parts in common and function in similar ways. This does not mean that SUV's evolved from Minivans

There are no fossil records in existance which present the kind of pattern necessary to support macro-evolution. If I am wrong than please point me to where such a record is available for viewing because I would love to see it.

Adaptation to environment is support for micro-evolution to which I present no objection, but changes in DNA (mutation) would have to have occured in order to support macro-evolution

Answer 1

There's NO evidence that evolution exists - and there will never be any evidence to be found - it's a dreamed up, imaginary bunch of crap that scientists have come up with. Read the book of Genesis - it tells the REAL story - that's all there is to it. Being a born again Christian, I believe 100% in what God says 'cause God cannot lie - there is no sin in Him. However, man of course, we humans are sinners, capable of lying and deceiving and so, scientists deceive many into believing we came from apes and animals evolved from other animals - it's all garbage! I trust what God says in His word over what man 'claims' any day of the week!

Answer 2

Gravity is not evolution. You are comparing two different things. The fossil record does not blend by small-step evolution. New creatures appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain virtually unchanged for million of years, until extinction. That is a fact, so Darwinian evolution is not a fact. To be an agnostic, you have to overlook the evidence for Christianity. The Old Testament (Jewish Bible) has over 300 prophecies about the coming Messiah. Jesus fulfilled all those specific predictions. That is enough evidence to prove Christianity is true. So how can you still be an agnostic? There are still some misguided people who say they believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

Answer 3

We have the fossil evidence of the intermediate species of different animals. The horse is the best documented form of evolution.

We see embryonic evolution as a fetus develops. It goes through stages where it resembles the embryo of an amphibian, reptile, mammal, then human. Some biologists believe that this is evidence that evolution has occurred over the history of the Earth.

Evolution literally means "to change over a period of time." Nowhere does it say that man came from apes. That is the misunderstanding of the "creation science" movement. Just study a good biology text and you will see it says nothing about man evolving from apes. It simply says there is fossil evidence that man and apes may have had a common ancestor.

Answer 4

There is NO evidence that evolution EXISTS, but rather that evolution is more LIKELY to exist. I point to the common cold or even influenza and even Ebola or Avian Flu. These are diseases which are changing over time. Evolution is (or may be simply) another term for mutation. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg, obvoiusly, and it was mutated somehow by something external and when hatched became the chicken. Every biology class studies fruit flies, and from this study learns about hereditary traits being carried on into the next generation, eye color for example. People of faith (faith, I think, are facts unsupported by evidence) believe this is ALL divine intervention. So, if that is the case, then God designed the Ebola virus! God caused a hurricane named Katrina. God caused a tsunami which devestated several countries and killed hundreds of thousands! Is an all powerful, all knowing diety orchestrating everything? God, or a God somewhere may have started the process, but is not taking part in our day to day affairs. So, in my opinion, God is on the sideline, watching, not taking any action, just observing the results of what he started. Back to the common cold, the virus changes, it mutates, and as a result, we all get another cold. If this changing of the common cold virus over time is not evolution, then I do not know what is. Something as simple as the mutation of the common cold so I get one every year is proof that evolution is likely to exist, but not with a 100% certainty. Maybe God just wants for all of us to suffer from the sniffles, but that surely, would make God a vengeful God, wouldn't it? Why else would God cause so much suffering in the world? I vote for natural section and evolution and against divine intervention. And for this singualar belief, people of faith would say I am doomed, doomed, doomed to eternal torment in Hell...

Answer 5

evolution is simply Nature selecting for a particular trait. if a trait allows an insect to stay alive and breed, it will; if it wasn't born with that trait and it gets eaten, it won't reproduce. it's all about selection. we have played the part of "nature" and selected for traits in lab rats and flies and bacteria and such, but everyone's ovelooking our original selection: dogs. dogs came from wolves; chihuahuas didn't grow in the wild, we had to select for the traits that led to chihuahuas in order to get chihuahuas. that's a simple fact. we may have mixed in a fox species or something along the way, and there may have been some dog-like species originally, but can you really picture a Chinese Crested out hunting in a meadow???? didn't think so.....THAT'S BECAUSE WE MADE THEM THAT WAY!!!!!!

Answer 6

The fact that we have 99% of the same genetics as a chimpanzee is a rather big hint!

Answer 7

Not again!!!

Go to talkorgins.org for a start. I am too tired to type much more than that.

Answer 8

This is a *partial* list of evidence of evolution (sorry this is long, but there's a *lot* of evidence):

1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

e. Not to mention all the mechanisms of natural selection verified by artificial selection (breeding of dogs, horses, cats, beef cattle, dairy goats, orchids, roses, champion squash, etc., etc.)

2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

5. Evidence from proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.

6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.

8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.

9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.

... And there's more ... a LOT more.

If you want a good site for this evidence, see:
"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

Answer 9

Read about Darwin here:

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/

Answer 10

The evidence comes from each and every related scientific field. I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design. Such evidence as:

The progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.
Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA
First multicellular animals 670 MYA
Shell-bearing animals 540 MYA
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA
Amphibians 350 MYA
Reptiles 310 MYA
Mammals 200 MYA
Nonhuman primates 60 MYA
Earliest apes 25 MYA
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA
One can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but when properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.

Structural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent.

The distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Before the island split off from the mainland, a common ancestor to both the Galapogos Iguana and the mainland Green Iguana populated that area. Later, the island split away from the continent, and the animals that remained on it were still comfortable. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.

Similarities During Development
Embryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, for instance, are sedentary crustaceans with little apparent similarity to such other
crustaceans as lobsters, shrimps, or copepods. Yet barnacles pass through a free-swimming larval stage in which they look like other crustacean larvae. The similarity of larval stages supports the conclusion that all crustaceans have homologous parts and a common ancestry.
Similarly, a wide variety of organisms from fruit flies to worms to mice to humans have very similar sequences of genes that are active early in development. These genes influence body segmentation or orientation in all these diverse groups. The presence of such similar genes doing similar things across such a wide range of organisms is best explained by their having been present in a very early common ancestor of all of these groups.
The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

Transitional fossils. Despite creationist claims that there are no transitional fossils, they do indeed exist, and there are many of them, across a wide range of species. Humans, horses, whales, and birds, just to name a few. There are transitional fossils showing the evolution of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, and reptile to mammal. There are even transitional species that are still alive today. The lungfish, for example.

Genetic variation.
Evolution would require genetic variation to happen, and a considerable amount of genetic diversity exists even among members of the same species, identical twins notwithstanding.

Microevolution.
Creationists once claimed that after God created everything, animals stopped changing. This has been so thoroughly debunked that even the most hardcore creationists accept that microevolutionary changes occur. The problem for creationists is that microevolution happens within a time fram that is even less then the blink of an eye in a gelogical scale. It is not unreasonable to infer that over hundreds of millions of years, conditions could lead to a population of animals evolving into something very different from the parent generation. Creationists are always asking evolutionists to show them an example of this, but they demand an example within a time scale that simply isn't reasonable. Not that creationists have ever been reasonable about debating these things. Microevolution is the same process as macroevolution, but over a much shorter time scale.

DNA analysis:
DNA analysis shows that genetic similarities between living things of all species of plant an animal show a close correlation with their closeness within the phylogenic tree. Shared DNA is very strong evidence of familial relationship. Of course, creationists dismiss this evidence as nothing more than God having used a similar design, and similar creatures will therefore have similar DNA. This is a weak, and sad effort to dismiss DNA evidence for evolution. Further, it doesn't explain why we share "junk DNA" with other animals. If a woman came to you with a baby that was a dead ringer for a guy when he was the same age, and a DNA test proved that he was the father, wouldn't it be a little laughable to you if that guy said that the baby had similar DNA because they looked alike? Likewise, if the DNA test showed that he wasn't the father of a baby that looked nothing at all like him, then said that it was his kid, but the DNA was different because the baby didn't look like him?

Disingenious? Of course. In fact, it is downright dishonest. DNA correlates with the degree of the relationship.
Period.

Just one of any of these evidences I've cited could not be considered evidence, much less proof. But the totality of it all, when brought together, requires an explanation, and common descent explains it best, which is why 99% of the 400,000 scientists in all related fields accept evoltuion as the best theory.

But if that isn't enough, literal creationism makes its own predictions...
1) No fossil record would exist prior to the week of creation, which would be approximately 6,000 to 40,000 years ago, depending on which biblical chronographist you choose to side with. Despite creationist claims to the contrary, isotopic dating methods ARE reliable, when properly done, and ALL evidence points to a fossil record which reaches back much further than even the largest estimate of YEC's.
2) According to the literal interpretation of Genesis, all animals and plants were created within a literal six earth-day period. There should be no fossils found during this creation week at all.
3) At this point, death had not yet entered the world (supposedly). All the world's animals and plants are now in place, and live forever (Because Adam and Eve had not yet sinned). If that is the case then we should only expect trace fossils like burrows, coprolites, shed trilobite or crab exoskeletons, animal tracks such as cattle, deer, human, dinosaurs etc. All baramins (= Biblical "kinds") should be present in this period. We should find no indications of death. We could also expect to find traces of human habitation. However this period is also very short, Genesis 5:3 gives an upper limit of 130 years. No major catastrophes are recorded in the Bible so fossils from this period are unlikely. No extinctions are possible without death, except perhaps in plant species. This would mean that no animal index fossils would be possible, although there may be plant index fossils. The big problem with this creationist prediction is that index fossils are found, even before the Cambrian period and the extinction event that preceded it.
4) If (physical) death was present before the Fall, then the expected fossils would also include dead bodies and be indistinguishable from the Post-Fall period. Extinctions would be possible for all species as would animal index fossils.
5) After the "fall," all agree that death is now possible. In addition to the trace fossils expected in the Pre-Fall period we would expect to find fossils of all living things present at the time: humans, sheep [Gen 4:2], cattle [Gen 2:20], birds [Gen 2:20], fish [Gen 1:28], fruit trees [Gen 1:29], seed bearing plants [Gen 1:29], Nephilim [Gen 6:4] etc. We should also find signs of more extensive human habitation such as cities [Gen 4:17].
Extinctions would be possible for all species and higher classifications, whether baramin or genus etc. We could also see speciation, but only within the baramins. This would allow the possibility of index fossils for this part of the YEC geological column. No new baramins should appear.
At the end of the period we might possibly find animal tracks outside their normal geographical ranges as the animals moved towards the Ark. Armadillo tracks in Mesopotamia for example.
6) The fossil record within this strata would be expected to contain all animals, past and present, represented, all at the same time, within the same strata. Instead, what we do see are certain species represented in certain strata, but not in others above or below it, and the fossils in successive strata show a definite progression. For example, there were multicellular organisms long before there were flowering land plants, fish before amphibians, amphibians before reptiles, reptiles before mammals and birds. We also see a gradual diversification within these classes as the fossil record progresses from further in the past to closer to the present. This is a big problem for creationism, since all of these classes should be represented in the same strata.
7) In the initial part of the Flood we would expect large numbers of fossils and a large number of species to go extinct. However no baramin of land animals or birds would go extinct [Gen 7:3]. Extinction is possible for fish or plant baramins. Each land animal baramin would be reduced to a single species. Bird baramins may have more than one species as there were evidently both ravens and doves on the ark; I am not sure if these two are in the same baramin or in different baramins.
The stratigraphic ordering of fossils would also be affected by the Flood. We would expect birds, pterosaurs and bats to be able to fly above the Flood and to survive for longer than land animals. The land animals would be hydrologically sorted with sauropods on the bottom, elephants above them, then medium sized dinosaurs and mammals mixed up followed by smaller and smaller mammals. Animals like seals, Ambulocetus and otters that could swim well would be expected to appear out of strict hydrological order as they would be likely to survive longer in the floodwaters due to their better swimming ability. For this reason we would expect whale fossils to be placed generally high within the Flood layers despite their size. By the end of the Flood period we would expect few fossils since anything left alive by then would either be going to survive the Flood, such as plants or fish, or be on the Ark.
Index fossils should be able to be used to tell the time within the Flood year on a hydrological basis. If a Flood-period rock layer has fossil elephants then it is probably earlier than a Flood period rock layer containing fossil Archaeopteryx. But we do not see this.
8) In the immediate Post-Flood period we would expect a very small number of fossils. Where a species survived outside the Ark, such as plants or fish, we would expect a reduced population spread all over the world. Thus a sparse fossil record with a reasonably wide geographical distribution. For species on the Ark we would expect them to effectively disappear from the fossil record for some time, as there would be only two individuals of one species to represent each baramin. This would probably include a great reduction in trace fossils, such as tracks and coprolites. However if any such trace fossils were found they could well be in unusual locations, for instance Kangaroo tracks found on the Asian mainland between Ararat and Australia. For extinct baramins we could possibly find one or two dead individuals, T. rex for example. Once the animals are off the Ark it is possible for a whole baramin to go extinct again. No new baramins should appear. Again, this is not what we see.
Once the animals had travelled from Ararat to their normal geographical areas we would expect to see a single species within each baramin reappear after a gap in the fossil record. We should then see that single species speciating at a rate fast enough to generate all the known Post-Flood species within that baramin.
Further, one would predict that it would take a great deal of time for regional species, like Australian kangaroos and koalas, to make their way to a suitable environment. The bible doesn't offer a miraculous transplantation, so we can safely assume that these animals got there on their own, reproducing, dying, and leaving both trace and index fossils of the kangaroo, for example, starting at Mt Ararat and gradually branching out. This would take some time, so these fossils would be expected to be found near the landing location of the ark close to the end of the flood, but not in the same strata great distances from this location. After a period of time, we should see their fossils in later strata further from Mt Ararat, but none further on, and so forth until the kangaroos completed their journey. What we actually see in the fossil record is completely different. We also see multiple extinction events were entire classes of animals get wiped out with no survivors. Other classes that do survive, then diversify and propogate new, similar yet different species. Multiple creation events by God might serve as an Ad Hoc Hypothesis to explain this, but that is unsupported by scripture.
9) The bulk of all fossils would be found in the flood strata. Nevermind that there is no geological evidence for a global, year-long flood, but what we see is fossils spread out over great periods of geological time.

For more details and predictions, visit the second link I listed in Sources.

In short, the predictions for literal creation don't fit any of the observations. This does not prove evolution. That would be the either or fallacy. Evidence against creationism is NOT evidence for evolution. Now, if the YEC's could just understand that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation, things could be settled. What scientists are left with is a series of observations and facts which need an explanation. Evolution is the best explanation.

Literal creation doesn't explain anything.

BTW, I am a christian, and I believe that we were created...through evolution...by God's design.

I don't understand how YEC's can't believe that God is omniscient enough to make life that can adapt and change.

El Chistoso