what are the 5 most believable evolutionists 'proof's?

Question

that they can replicate here and now?

Answer 1

Sweetheart, there is no proof. Evolution was never mean to become fact or furthermore a religion. But simply one mans opinion!

Answer 2

There is no proof of the Theory of Evolution. It is merely the best explanation available based on the evidence at hand. Here is some good support:

The fact that we see evolution happen (and even make it happen in plants - bioagricultural engineering).
The fact that there ARE transitional fossils.
Observations of natural selection taking out weak animals.
A lack of support for other theories.
And dating of the earth to 4-5 billion years, giving plenty of time for evolution.

Answer 3

"Proof" has nothing to do with how we learn about the real world. Evolution is a matter of science, which deals in evidence, not proof.

Replicable evidence for evolution includes computer models, observations of evolution in short-generation plants and animals, observations of the continuous variations in the structures of plants and animals, observations of the genetic structures of plants and animals, geographical distributions of those large-scale and genetic structures, and probably a few thousand other things.

Answer 4

1) The existence of vestigial organs
2) The similarities between embryos of vastly different species before differentiation.
3) The existence of "bridge" species (Such as the Archeopteryx).
4) Homologous structures (The fact that whales have finger bones)
5) Demonstrated genetic mutations.

And no, these can't be replicated in an experiment, unless you have a couple of million years to spare.

Answer 5

Are you asking for the 5 facts and 3 inferances of evolution by Ernst Mayr?

Fact 1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born would again reproduce successfully.

Fact 2: Except for minor annual fluctuations and occasional major fluctuations, populations normally display stability.

Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. In a stable environment they remain relatively constant.

Inference 1: Since more individuals are produced than can be supported by the available resources but population size remains stable, it means that there must be a fierce struggle for existence among individuals of a population, resulting in the survival of a part, often a very small part, of the progeny of each generation.

Fact 4: No two individuals are exactly the same; rather, every population displays enormous variability.

Fact 5: Much of this variation is heritable.

Inference 2: Survival in the struggle for existence is not random but depends in part on the hereditary constitution of the surviving individuals. This unequal survival constitutes a process of natural selection.

Inference 3: Over the generations this process of natural selection will lead to a continuing gradual change of populations, that is, to evolution and to the production of new species.

Answer 6

I've asked evolutionists that many times and as I understand it there are four major ones.
1. The charts which Darwin started and others have continued which show the theory of how it all happened.
2. Dating methods which are very innacurate based on the decay and reductions of various elements over a period of time.
3. Strata evidence. Where certain fossils are found in certain rock layers, which is entrely circular reasoning. (Fossils are x years old because they are in certain rock type, and rocks are x years old because they have certain fossils in them)
3. DNA testing based on the idea that life comes from DNA, but the trouble is that caskets are full of DNA. Life has to have a different Source than DNA
These seem to be the main "proofs" that they use but in my opinion don't realy prove anything.

Answer 7

1. The statisitical similarities of vestigal genes that can be mapped against the phylogenic tree. (Repeatable).

2. Island biogeography (there are a few repeatable test that use observations from island biogeogrpahy with comparative molecular genetics to support the evolutionary model)

Answer 8

I'd ask in the Science Q&A, this is a Religious and Spiritual section, Evolution has nothing to do with either. Also, what you want is "evidence", not "proof". Proof to one person is blasphemy to another.

If you're simply trying to instigate a fight and start a flame war, don't bother asking because you're obviously not open minded enough to draw a logical conclusion from the evidence you are provided.

Answer 9

I don't think that we can bring millions of fossils here right now. I also think that you need some equipment to do DNA analysis.

Look, just read Nature. There are peer reviewed articles there ever issue. If that is too technical for you (It is for me since I do computers, but my wife reads it) National Geographic is a great source. Here is a great article on the latest hominid find, just to get you started: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucys-baby.html

Answer 10

You do not understand the science of evolution... The science is based upon RANDOM mutations in DNA sequences. A mutation in gentic code is not reproducible.

But DNA itself is proof of evolution. Your own cells, once scared, do not reproduce themselves with 100% fidelity. There are small random mutations occuring in your own body all the time. Over the course of generations, it can result in some radical changes in genetic code... Over the course of billions of years, the results are all of the creatures that ever roamed the Earth.

Answer 11

that apes are close to humans in DNA (but so are dogs)

that G-d doesnt exist (but thats opinion)

that fossils are millions of years old (but fossil dating is now severly questioned)

dinosaurs (called dragons in the Bible, recognized 23 times)

and logic....I guess. Or lack of.

Blessings
David T