How can we prove/disprove Evolution?

Question

If we form from another species to our current state, what happened to all of the specimens in between?

Answer 1

periods of rapid evolution followed by periods of little evolution. thats one way to explain gaps in the fossil history

Answer 2

Re ccguy's idea that evolution is "just a theory:" A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Anyhoo, regarding the "in between specimens," evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species, talking about reproductive isolation. You could look it up.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups.

Evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

Answer 3

PLEASE JUST READ THIS!!! ITS NOT A WASTE!!
There are so many things that DISPROVE evolution it rediculous!!!
The guy a couple answers before me said, "Anyhoo, regarding the "in between specimens," evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection COULD produce new species, talking about reproductive isolation. You could look it up." Scientifically speaking evolution according to their own standard isnt even a therory! For it to be a theory it needs to measurable, observable, repeatable! None of these happen! There are so many incredibly intelligent people that believe in evolution because life is so complicated its origins must be complicated, only as a medical student at the Univeristy of Kansas i've come to realize it so incredibly simple!! God created it! It satisfies every unknown answer about creation and the origins of life! The Bible has been around thousands of years before a guy named Charles Darwin was even born or his parents for that matter!!! Look at the evidence around you, i dont know if you've heard statistics but for a eukyarote to "evolve" into a prokarote is less likely than walking outside your front door and finding the winning lottery ticket every day consecutively for the nest 4000 years!!! God is incredible and so is His creation! Embrace this truth and you will never doubt life like evolutionist!!!!

Answer 4

Evolution has already been proved from a scientific viewpoint. Individuals have tried unsuccessfully to disprove evolution by including intelligent design which says that an intelligent person created us. Evolution can be proved through analysis of DNA structures and genetics linking one generation to another. It can also be proved by studying fossils and observing how natural selection improved our physical features. Eg: Neanderthal Man had a different face structure to modern man. I believe that evolution is the best answer to how life is how it is today.

Answer 5

Response to those above:
First off, very little money goes into evolutionary biology. Try getting a grant in that field, it's not easy. Second, the idea that lots of good science is underfunded due in part to diversion of funds to evolutionary biology research is crap. This presumes that there is no value to this line of research with respect to the population at large. Ever heard of evolutionary medicine? Ever wonder why US physicians are discussing whether certain blood pressure medications should even be prescribed to a subset of african americans that have a specific genetic background since they do not work for them at all? Propose a way to ensure that the limited funds out there get to the best scientific proposals, and a way to ensure that good ideas with absolutely no preliminary data get some sort of support with the funds available without undercutting any existing or granted future funding? I dare you.

Answer 6

1. Evolution is claimed to be purposeless, like throwing the dice. Why then would anyone work on an issue that is purposeless? Stephens Hawkins, who never got dirt under his nails on a dig is either a lousey journalist or a self-contradictory philosopher or both.

2. He is so dumb he is naively swimming in dangerous waters. Who do you think he is trying to convince life is worthless, blloodless intellectuals who live in 5 million condominiums or neanderthal motorcycle riders?

3. I stand with the common man, the street-wise New York jury who knows that "without a vision the poeple perish."

4. A scienctific theory begins with curiosity, not a what Churchill marked about getting ready for his of the cuff remarks to Parliament next day. The curious observe facts whatever they prove and from that deduces a general theory which anyone should be able to duplicate.

5. EVEN MORE IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES MUST BE CAPABLE OF BEING PROVED FALSE. Otherwise, they are personal revelation. Now there is hardly anything wrong with revelation, only it is not the jurisdiction of science, but of theology. Each a matter of belief, only the procedure is different.

6. Besides we already know that Hawkins doesn't give a fig whether evolution is true or false. He is a atheist who enjoys stealing lollypops from his "inferiors." He said even if it could be proven that evolution is false, "I would still defend it to cleanse the human race of superstitutions." I think, perhaps, he has his superstitutions reversed.

brilliant physicists--its human nature--banged his head against the wall insisting on a unfied field theory. In his old age young physicists paid him respects but no longer took him seriously. One of his contributions to science was that God wouldn't trick our senses. How did kn ow? God obviously chose a third revelavtion from outside time and space. Now, as a result of Heisenberg's theory, a 2000 year old religion just on the basis of pragmatism and insistence on free wil finds the latest science moving CLOSER to Christianity, not father away. It is called quantum theory and determines that we cannot know the least or the greatest because the observer influences what he sees, as with light.

Now light cannot be both a wave and a particle. But that's the way creatures see it because our brains are simply too small--except of course Hawkins--to grasp the universe at once. For all I know he sees the universe through a Heineken b eer keg. It isthe gesalt problem.

When Hawkins delivers a lecture with appropriate scientic proof rather than images that are drug induced, I'd go anywhere with an open mind to hear this one, because it's all I thin k about.

"Where did we come from.? Why are we here? Where are we going?

Answer 7

The transitional species are there, you have just not looked hard enough for them. Humans have a good transitional record, with many supporting artifacts that other animals lack. Remember, not only do populations evolve, not individuals, evolution is not linear, but has many branching's of these populations.

Answer 8

No, its a belief, and all the grant money, provided by rich, irreligious, evolutionists, goes to trying to prove it so everyone is joining into the evolution choir to sing its song, palms out, waiting for some cash. Trying to sound scientific, they all parrot jargon about, mutations, adaptation, environmental pressures, bla, bla, bla. and of course they hate unbelievers and questions. They use our school system to indoctrinate everyone with this thought control.
Also why they hate school vouchers, charter and private schools, and the evil rebels (home schoolers.)
While good science is being underfunded.
They will treat you like you are naive that you don't understand the radical shifts in the genetics while they are really trying to get you to be a believer into their cult. They can't explain the obvious, that there are no transition forms because it never really happened so you must come into the indoctrination of their higher knowledge and believe.
If you dare speak out against them they will brand you a heretic.
Read the kids story. "The Emperors New Clothes." Remember only the wisest could see it and all others were fools.

Answer 9

Are you asking what happened to the fossil evidence?

The possibility of finding any fossils is incredibly small. So many occurrences have to be just right to form a fossil, so either we just haven't looked everywhere yet, or the fossils never formed.

Answer 10

First of all, evolution is a theory, not fact. So even if scientists agree in the theory, its still theory. Also, they are always finding new evidence for and against the theory. One of the most significant finds lately as (attached article) contradicts mans evolution because it indicates that humans and Neanderthals bred with one another. So one species of man did not evolve into another, but both existed at the same time.

Having said this, there are likely elements of both evolution and creation in life.

There is no doubt that there are some elements of natural selection in the process of life. For example, moths in certain environments can assume the same color as their surroundings to evade predators. Its of course the moths that "stick out" from their surroundings that get eaten by their predators and do not survive to reproduce. Thus survivors produce and continue the species. Having said this, I think its naive to think that given that species adapt to their environments, that there is not an overall design element to the moth life form to begin with.

Although there are proven natural selection processes that occur within evolution theory, there are a lot of problems with the overall theory. For example, there are no "in-between" species meaning that species went from one to a completely different one without gradually changing. Darwin even had problems with his own theory. Also, it is more probable that a tornado go through a junk yard and create a 747 than for evolution to have created life. In other words, there is an element of "design" in the existence of life. If there is "design," there must be a creator. But there are definitely natural selection processes that also occur within the overall creation and adapting of life.

I think that there are some natural selection processes in life but that the overall design came from our Creator

Here is also an interesting article on inbreeding that refutes evolution because one species of man did not evolve into another but breed together from separate species:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2007-01-16T011350Z_01_N15450153_RTRUKOC_0_US-NEANDERTHAL-SKULL.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2