How do scientist prove the existence of evolution, when there's no archeological prove to say this?

Question

I would like to make clear that "prove" is a verb and "proof" is a noun. The usage of the word "prove" in my question is correct. Pleace check your own proficiency before making comments on such a simple thing.

Answer 1

Science doesn't "prove" anything. Scientist work on theories that are accepted by academics until they can be disproved.

And there is a ton of archaeological evidence. Humans in the ancient Egypt were a lot shorter, we have evolved to become bigger. The archaeological proof is the size of the sarcophagus that they kept their dead in; the average person today would be about 5" or more too big to fit in one.

How about this: Pompeii (city buried by a volcano) - Door way height was usually about 5 feet tall and their beds about the same size. Do you think they just liked to duck under each doorway and sleep cramped in their beds?

How about suits of armor from the middle age, shorter then most people today but larger than sarcophagus and door height in Pompeii. (Trend of evolving taller.)

Even if there wasn't archaeological proof to support evolution there is still a ton of other scientific fields to support evolution with evidence of its existence.

I wish people like you would stop posting questions to start an argument.

Answer 2

To get this straight: Even some scientists think of evolution as a theory, but this is plain wrong. Evolution is a natural process. As sunset and sunlight are. They exist, we can describe them, but we cannot not neccesarily explain them. And that's were evolution theories step in. Yes, there are many evolution theories. And they are not about wheter evolution exists or not, they are about HOW it takes place. Now i don't expect you religious fanatics to understand this, but if you would only get a MINIMUM of education, maybe you'll finally quit posting such crap.

You can ask such questions in the spiritual section or religion or whatever. But these kind of questions here are only meant as a provocation and DO NOT BELONG HERE.

NOW, GET OUT!

Supplemental: I beg to differ! The archeological timeframe is more than enough time to show evolution. Think alone of the many speicies which have came and go in the last hundred thousands of years.

Answer 3

Your assumption is flawed. In terms of acceptable standards there is plenty of "archeological proof":

If you dig down below a dried up river bed, and you see multiple strata in the rock, the logical conclusion is that the strata are made up of layers deposited by the river. If you see that a river is flowing through softer rock, and that it has raised sides forming a valley, the logical conclusion is that the water has eroded the rock.

You cannot "prove" either of these events happened, but only a fool would come to a contrary opinion, would you not agree?

So it is with evolution; bones found as fossils support the idea that speciation occurs over long periods of time and has since life began, as do observation today of variation and natural selection.

Use your common sense!

There is no

Answer 4

Hooray for abulafia for finally pointing this out (doesn't anybody else have a dictionary?)

Archaeology is the study of human cultures (not fossils). As such, it only covers about the last 300,000 years where humans left some signs of cultures (like cave paintings, or human burials). Humans were pretty much "fully evolved" for most of this time, so would would not expect to find much signs of human evolution in such a short amount of time (300,000 years compared to the 3 or 4 billion years that life has been evolving, is *nothing*) ... other than the fact that we're quite a bit taller than we were even a few hundred years ago.

(Although I should add that archaeological evidence of *human artifacts* (like cave paintings older than 30,000 years, or human burial sites as old as 300,000 years) is *way* more than enough to make the idea of a 6,000-year-old earth quite absurd.)

If you mean paleontology ... the study of *fossils*, that's a whole other story. There is *tons* of evidence of evolution in the fossil record. See my answer (and those of other people) in another question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoJ59Ci_0iOU6Slp.j5YOTnsy6IX?qid=20070112111331AAYSN5W&show=7#profile-info-15fa66ffdcd8312e52edd18a0b01556faa

But just ignoring fossils for a second ... here's some powerful evidence of the existence of evolution:

Why do you think we need a different flu shot every year? Really think about it. Once we find a vaccine that makes people immune to many strains of the flu virus, why does this shot no longer work a year later?

The answer is that viruses undergo *evolution*. Those viruses that have a mutation that makes them resistant to last year's flu shot, live longer, and reproduce more viruses that have that same mutation. After only a year, most of the surviving flu virus is resistant to last year's flu shot.

If that is not "prove" of evolution, then what is?

Answer 5

There's no archaeological proof because archaeology is the study of human culture through the recovery of artifacts and such. And, humans have not been around as long as the earth has. If they had, then there would be archaeological evidence present no matter how far down you dug. But we're just on the very slim top layer.

Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you meant paleontology, though you could have just as easily meant geology, or biology, or any field of science dealing with natural phenomena. And if you're asserting there is no proof of evolution in these fields, then you really need to learn about evolution, even if you end up disagreeing with it. Is it really that spiritually dangerous to know thine enemy?

Answer 6

The best scientists never prove anything. They try to disprove some things.

1) While doing Microbiology we watched evolution at work.
2) Brown moths in England had more dark offspring as survivors, in polluted areas. This suggested evoulution at work in a matter of months or maybe a year.

Answer 7

Proof (not prove) is a dangerous word, since it sounds absolute when it is actually quite relative. From a philosophical standpoint, no one can prove that "reality" exists, and what we call reality is nothing but a personal halucination. That said, there is extensive fossil evidence supporting evolution, as well as recent Neanderthal DNA results. Feel free to join us in reality.

Answer 8

The theory of Evolution is the answer that best fits the archaeological facts (i.e. fossils). With the fossil record we have, nothing else ever comes close to fitting in.

It is possible to observe evolution with Microbes as they reproduce far faster than multi-cellular animals. What else is the acquisition of antibiotic resistance if not evolution?

Answer 9

Another part of the problem is that Intelligent Design/Creationism would both stipulate that the Earth and universe are much younger than we know them to be. We have evidence of man long before Adam and Eve could have been wandering around in the buff.

Answer 10

Scientists have not proven that evolution is true. It remains only a theory. Darwin's theory is still a theory.

There is some evidence from fossils and bones that have been carbon dated to be millions of years old, that some think suggests that there were creatures long ago that resembled man, But they could just be an extinct animal of some sort of ape.

There is no conclusive evidence of evolution, but diehards continue to try and prove it. It is possible that they might be proven right, but I personally doubt it. It would take irrefutable, compelling evidence to make me believe in evolution.