There is a huge mountain of evidence that evolution has happened, so it is hard to know where to start.
There is an uninterrupted fossil record of the evolution of horses for instance. They came from rat-sized clawed animals and gradually grew to horse size hooved animals. Skeletal fossils have been found in each step in the process. I don't know where you live, but there is an exhibit at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago that shows each step of the way.
The fossil record is, of course, in the overall scheme of things, incomplete. This is because only a very few remains fossilize so they can be found millions of years later and because those few that do fossilize still have to be found.
Interestingly, new DNA evidence backs up the bone fossilization records. We all have large segments of DNA that is not used any more. This could be considered fossilized DNA since it is left over from our ancestors. This DNA is being studied now since it can be used to determine which species are most closely related and which are ancestral to current living species.
2007-06-07 02:25:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Joan H 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
To answer the question ... here's a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_evidence
But I need to respond to sonfai81's dishonest post.
That "quote" by George Wald is *very* commonly found and repeated in many many creationist sites.
And George Wald never said or wrote that!
The "quote" is a complete fabrication. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
or
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-25489.html
To give sonfai81 the benefit of the doubt, he probably believes the "quote" is genuine ... he is doing what many creationists do ... repeating a quote found on a creationist web site without every having read a word actually written by George Wald ... or even heard of him for that matter. That is exactly how such a "quote" gets copied to so many web sites, despite having never actually being written by Wald.
This isn't even quote mining ... it is an outright lie.
And it is precisely the attention to details and "research" that leads someone to conclude "Honestly there's no hard evidence" of evolution. In other words, no actual research at all ... just repeating what you've heard from dubious sources.
2007-06-07 03:42:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by secretsauce 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
a) The existence of the mini-dachshund. It has wolf ancestors, but is not itself a wolf. You can find all the intermediate forms you want in other breeds of dog.
b) When I woke up this morning, I noticed how very chimplike I was. So I went to the zoo. The chimps saw me, and pointed and laughed, because I was so stretched out and deformed. But still -- that should tell you something. I recognize that I am very chimplike... and the chimps recognize that I am very chimplike too.
2007-06-07 08:26:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
fossil records, animal behavior, DNA studies, animal attributes, micro evolution (like bacteria), bone and muscle studies, geography, tool use in the animal kingdom (including humans), etc etc. just read a basic biology book and it will tell you a really general reason why scientists believe in the theory of evolution...but evolution takes ALOT of knowledge...a general is good but the details behind why the theory of evolution is approved is what makes it real.
heres a site thats all about evolution:
http://www.myspace.com/roiscience
2007-06-07 00:13:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Too much to list here. The link below is a very good place to start.
2007-06-07 03:09:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by pob14 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Honestly there's no hard evidence. There's lots of speculation and interpretation of evidence but nothing solid. Which led to a nobel prize winning atheist to say this...
“There are only two possibilities has to how life arose…one is spontaneous generation…the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. This leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible.”
Dr George Wald. Nobel Prize Winner and atheist.
2007-06-07 00:09:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by sonfai81 5
·
0⤊
7⤋
well there is proof that natural selection happened, like survival of the fittest and things like that, within species that already exist, and it can make new species of animals if some are isolated but i refuse to believe that i evolved from a single celled organism, its impossible, thing about how complex we are, like all the complicated cells in the eye and things like that, it just doesnt make sense to me
2007-06-07 00:10:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Stupidgoldfish 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
fossils
2007-06-07 00:16:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋