Evolution Proofs?

Question

If there are proof for this theory, then tell me them. Right now, I'm not going to argue with you people. I won't say anything. Now show me the proof

-_- don't give me websites. give me proof

I forgot to mention that I once vandalized 'Darwin' on wikipedia

and goosebumps don't proove anything

I can tell that you people CREATED these facts. I mean, come on. If Yahoo wasn't CREATED, then my classmate's dad won't be here trying to improve it.

psh. Fred, why do you bother coming here if you're here to insult people?

and if we had a time machine, show me what life was like long time ago.

o seriously, if we were apes back then, how did clothes come to be? and why do we have to fear of being naked in the public?

come on, have you seen your dog use the toilet? eat with forks or spoons? Will they in the future? past?

Notetoself: since when did fish grow fur

thanks iraqisax!

hi CD

I'm not arguing. I'm stating facts, do you see anyone screaming at the moment? no? o, ok.

Answer 1

First show me proof that you are capable of thinking.

Answer 2

Science doesn't deal in proofs. Proof is for mathematicians and logicians. Science deals in evidence.

The evidence is collected, observations are made, experiments are conducted. Hypotheses are proposed to explain the evidence. The hypotheses are tested against new evidence, observations and experiment. The hypotheses are used to make predictions. When a hypothesis explains all the evidence and its predictions are correct then the hypothesis gains the status of a theory. This is not a proof because it can and must be changed should evidence come to light which shows it is wrong. Theory is as good as it gets in science.

Newton proposed a theory of gravity which works well. Newtonian gravity was used to send men to the Moon and the various space probes away from this planet. It is, however, wrong. At the quantum level, Newtonian gravity doesn't work but Einsteinian gravity does. Einsteinian gravity, however, is too complex to use in ordinary life and Newtonian gravity still works for big things. There are, therefore, two theories of gravity in use, one of which doesn't give the complete picture.

You might think that the theory of gravity is robust, it is. So is the germ theory of disease. The theory of evolution is stronger and more robust than either gravity or germ theory. There is more evidence for it, its predictions are correct. There is no other explanation for the differences in life forms on this planet that stands up to scrutiny. Evolution is the only explanation that makes sense.

Answer 3

The proof offered by evolutionists consists of imaginary "missing links" that always turn out to be frauds. Date of millions of years ago (how would they know that?). If an evolutionists says something is 100 million years old, next year, maybe it will be 500 million years old. Talk is cheap.

Anything that they don't understand on the human body is considered to serve no purpose, and that's a proof of evolution. It makes more sense to me to believe that some unknown organ or appendage serves a purpose that we don't understand.

But the most obvious question is: Where are the transitional fossils? Where are the fossils of birds with wings too small to fly? Did those tiny unusable wings contribute to survival? If no, how did they survive to continue evolving?

Did a cold blooded animal one day give birth to a warm blooded animal? If honeybees are so necessary to the pollination of plants, how did they manage to survive for millions of years before honeybees evolved?

When the first human evolved from some primate, what did it mate with? A baboon?

All of these questions are just off the top of my head. Look at how ridiculous the whole idea of evolution is! How could anybody be so gullible? C'mon people, use your heads! Think about what you believe.

Answer 4

Vestigial structures, similar DNA, Finches on the Darwin Islands, change in finches beak size due to droughts....

there is plenty of evidence but you obviously aren't interested in hearing any of it since you already made your mind up.

Creationism and creationists are the biggest joke ever. In 100 year everyone will be looking back and laughing at the ridiculous fairy tales people in the 21st century believed. The bible will become a part of mythology which will get no more attention than maybe a history class.

Answer 5

There very fact that you asked a question like that in a forum like this shows that you have no intention of reading or accepting anything offered about evolution. You'll deny it even if we could put you in a time machine and show you evolution in action. The subject of evolution is so complicated that there's no way anyone could explain the entire thing accurately in Y/A, and you know it.
If you're truly interested, look it up. There's a LOT of information out there, and all the evidence is out there for you to observe. I've already done my research, now you do yours.
Here are some places to get started.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/creation.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
http://www.creationtheory.org/

Answer 6

There is now considerable evidence that much of protist diversity had its origins in endosymbiosis, a process in which certain unicellular organisms engulfed other cells which became endosymbiots and ultimately organelles in the host cells. The earliest eukaryotes probably acquired mitochondria by engulfing alpha protobacteria.
http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k2endosymb.html
You can find evidence all over the place.
/http://www.si.edu/science_and_technology/evolution_and_paleontology
But as tentofield pointed out, science deals in evidence not absolutes like proofs.
Religion of course deals in neither, its province is Faith which needs neither.
I'm posting this stuff for anyone who might find it useful if they come along. As for the original poster. I;ll be blunt, You do not have the cognitive ability to understand. No matter how hard you try it will be to much for you. You can contribute to the stream of life in other ways. I wish you luck stay happy.

Answer 7

The molecular sequence evidence gives the most impressive and irrefutable evidence for the genealogical relatedness of all life. The nature of molecular sequences allows for extremely impressive probability calculations that demonstrate how well the predictions of common descent with modification actually match empirical observation. Common descent is a deduction that directly follows from premises based on empirically observed molecular evidence. In addition, knowledge of biological molecular mechanisms and structures, combined with macroevolutionary theory, has given very specific, novel, and testable biomolecular predictions.

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.

Answer 8

Unfortunately I can't afford to fly you to the Galapagos Islands so that you could see the proof for yourself - you'll just have to accept the news story below! Scientists have continued to study the finches originally discovered by Charles Darwin. In the relatively short period of time since the H.M.S. Beagle visited the Galapagos, scientists have documented observable changes in these birds - in direct response to their changing environment.

The basic concept of Evolution is that populations of organisms will adapt to changing forces in the environment - Natural Selection. The evidence I present is WELL DOCUMENTED.

No two types of animals are going to change at the same rate. However over long periods of time, physiological changes, and ultimately speciation does occur. Now if you are asking about changing from one type of animal to another (ex. fish to amphibian to reptile to bird or mammal...), need I remind you that this man-made system of classification is overly simplified to make it easier to classify living organisms. And unfortunately most of the fossil evidence of this type of evolution is long lost to the geologic processes of the earth. However, over the last 40 or so years, scientists have begun to find find fossil links between reptiles and birds - give it more time and the answers will become clear.

Answer 9

Search it up for yourself. You'll get hundreds of scientific websites with lots of proof...

And you'll learn a lot.

But if you want some proof now, here is some...
Have you heard of the fossil record? And ever think why people have fingernails or appendixes or tailbones if they haven't evolved from something else? All those are useless to people now, but were used sometime in the past.

Lice have also recently evolved so that they aren't killed by soap anymore.

Answer 10

The talk origins website is created by scientists for the general public to learn about evolution. If you're really wanting to know, which I personally doubt, then you'll go to the site and read it for yourself. You are asking a question that is far too complex to fully answer in a limited forum such as this.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Answer 11

The evolution of the horse. This is the best example of a well mapped fossil record from the early Eocene epoch, about 55mya to present.