Evolution what evidence do we have?

Question

This is kinda the next part of my last question. What evidence do we have of evolution? The lack of transitional forms is what gets me. You know if at one point we were monkeys where is the half human half monkey fossil? And does Lucy really count? (I’m sure you know what I mean by Lucy) The same with any other animal that evolved? I for one would think the world would be full of them. What is the evidence? i want to know so badly?

Tim g couldn't you just name some? Isn't the whole purpose of this website to ask questions and get answers?

Answer 1

COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H., "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence. ", Quoted in: DARWIN'S ENIGMA

MARK RIDLEY, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981

GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven t found any evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, are stable once established." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136

NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986

LORD SOLLY ZUCKERMAN, "His Lordship's scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. 'They are just bloody apes', he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa. ...Zuckerman had become extremely powerful in British science, being an adviser to the government up to the highest level. ...while at Oxford and then Birmingham universities, he had vigorously pursued a metrical and statistical approach to studying the anatomy of fossil hominids. ...it was on this basis that he underpinned his lifelong rejection of the australopithecines as human ancestors." Bones of Contention, 1987

William Howells, Harvard, "...the pelvis was by no means modern, nor were the feet: the toes were more curved than ours; the heel bones lacked our stabilizing tubercles; and a couple of small ligaments that, in us, tighten the arch from underneath, were apparently not present. The finger bones were curved as they are in tree-climbing apes. ...Here is something of an enigma. Excellent evidence of a very modern foot from the from the hominid footprints at Laetoli. Excellent evidence of hominid but not fully modern feet from the Afar bones. Russel Tuttle of the University of Chicago, a leading expert on hominoid gaits and limbs, finds that all aspects of the footprints, especially toe proportions, are remarkably like modern human feet and that the Afar feet are significantly less than human." GETTING HERE, 1993

Answer 2

Grrr... There ARE transitional forms you just can't be bothered to look them up. There is no half man/half ape but there are plenty of other transitional forms.

Here's a shocking idea. GOOGLE IT. You have access to a computer, yet you obviously don't use it to look up information.

Better yet, I'll go to one single site on the net and get you your answer right away.

This explains what a Transitional Fossil is...

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

And this one gives you a LIST of transitional fossils....

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

Now, what makes you think that just because science hasn't found the MAIN transitional fossil for human beings that it won't ever.

Are you honestly dumb enough to think that science knows everything now that it will ever know? You can't possibly be that stupid.

Type the words "transitional fossils" into google. If you want to know that badly, you'd have already done it. Instead, you've come here to cause trouble when no one could be as stupid and you've decided to be lazy and make other people do the work for you.

Answer 3

Since apes and humans evolved from a seperate, common ancestor species that was neither fully ape nor human but had characterstics of both, we may very well have found vast amounts of fossils from that species without knowing it. Many of the petrified bones that have been found have traits common to both species but since we're talking about millions of years of lapsed time, it's rather difficult to find enough to make a complete, accurate skeleton. We do have hominid traces from the pre-human period, but as to it's exact form that is mainly guesswork until we find a lot more.

Most of the evidence for evolution is genetic, fossil, and based on the study of existing mutations. It is more than sufficient to prove evolution, but if you're looking for a whole 'missing link', you may have to wait a while longer. We've only been looking in a serious manner for less than a century.

Answer 4

There is a huge amount of evidence - if you are truly curious, you would be searching for it, not debating about it. Try a library as a starting point.

As for transitional fossils, there is a great list compiled on Wikipedia. And, every time science has provided a transitional fossil to Christians, they demand yet another transitional fossil between the first trasitional fossil and the next, ad infinitum. Its a losing battle with you people...

Answer 5

Irreducible complexity boils down to finding things that the evolutionary mechanism is not yet fully understood for and then jumping to the conclusion that it indicates it could only have happened by the sentient design of a god. This argument has failed many times as science has progressed and unraveled how things previously labeled irreducibly complex actually could have naturally evolved. Irreducible complexity proponents then go find something else not worked out yet as evidence of their belief. Its not a very valid argument though since just because the natural mechanism is not worked out doesn't mean that there is not one or as has been shown repeatedly we won't come to work it out in the future.

Answer 6

Lucy is only one of many at this point. Several transitional hominids have been found at this point, and just about every year a new one is discovered. This is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evolutionary evidence. The evidence spans through every relevant branch of science, and so far none of it points towards anything except biological evolution. This is only an issue in America where it seems we have a fundamentalist movement.

Answer 7

I like the way you glibly state " lack of transitional forms" as if it were really true. I would guess that there are in fact several hundred complete fossil records showing species transitions and several thousand incomplete records and creationists just say there are none. If there really were none biologists might be a bit concerned but guess what-they aren't. The link below details at least a hundred examples of these "non-existent" transitions.

Answer 8

Um there are volumes of works on the subject... how bout you go do some reading!

Here is something for you to think about.

Maybe God created the evolutionary process.

Think about it, you were a totally different form many years ago right? I mean you were what we call a baby right? now you are still a whiny little baby but in a bigger form correct?

And one day your form may change into an old lady right? They are different forms right?

Your mindset may actually even evolve and you may actually begin to believe things that have facts to back them up vs fairy tales.

I didn't bother to name any because if you used this website correctly you would realize the question has been asked and answered hundreds of times already.

Answer 9

Monkeys did not evolve into humans, you should read the books you criticize. Evolution suggests we have a common ancestor, nothing more. If you find a book and some pages are missing, does that mean that the book doesn't exist?

Answer 10

No, you're right. There's no evolution. "God" just created the earth and the universe with his magic wand. He created it in 8 days, was it? It's interesting that the people who wrote the Bible "know" that "God" created everything in 8 days, even though there logically couldn't have been people to observe this since people were "created" yet. Every time I get angry and want to poke holes in the fallacy of Creationism, I simply give up because it's TOO easy. There's no sport in proving Christians wrong, as almost everything they say is false!

Answer 11

Forget about fossils, the proof is within you. Do some research into the human genome and a thing called "junk" DNA. Genetics is very fascinating stuff.