Evolution isn't true?

Question

If you look at fossils from millions of years ago, there's no change. Just look at the fossils of fish and other sea life. They look exactly the same. The same is true for ants and other insects. Shouldn't they look totally different if it was true?

Answer 1

When looking for evidence of evolution among fossils, one cannot only look at the morphology of the existing fossils. One must also examine the molecular changes that have occured over time. Two creatures may appear to be the same, but have different genomes. Also the fossil record is largely incomplete. As one person said before, there must be a need for the creature to adapt and evolve. In the case of ticks, alligators and other such creatures, they have been perfectly adapted to their individual environments and have had no need for further evolution. When examining other creatures, such as the humanoids, one can see from fossil records that evolution played a major role only a short while ago (in terms of the Earth's age).

Answer 2

Just look at the fossils of fish and other sea life. They look exactly the same. The same is true for ants and other insects.

False. Try taking another look. Evolution has plenty of evidence to back it up, including the fossil record, but DNA analysis is PROOF that evolution occurs.

Answer 3

Just look at the fossils of fish and other sea life. They look exactly the same. The same is true for ants and other insects.

False. Try taking another look. Evolution has plenty of evidence to back it up, including the fossil record, but DNA analysis is PROOF that evolution occurs.

Answer 4

The fossil record shows a great deal of change over time, namely descent of organisms from common ancestors. What you seem to be confused by is thinking that the rate of evolutionary change has to be constant. If a species is well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. That's why you see horseshoe crabs almost unchanged in the last 250 million years. But changes in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction). So, you'd see organisms change over time, and yes - fossil records support this.

Also, for those of you saying science or DNA "proves" something, be careful of your terminology. Science does not prove anything. Instead, science offers an explanation based on the best evidence available, which is how science can accumulate knowledge, undergo revision, and advance.

Answer 5

The facts of your "question" are just wrong. The fossils do look very different. Yes, some look the same or similar, but that is because evolution does not effect all the population of a certain species, only those whos ecosystem demands change.

Answer 6

No. If living conditions remain the same there's no selective pressure to reward changes in anatomy.

Actualy ants have changed a great deal.
The same is true of insects, the variations are slight, but changes have occurred. Including the shift down from the freakishly oversized insects of the carboniferous period.

Answer 7

look up the evolution of the horse.
It's a textbook example of how the anatomy of an animal changed during its evolutionary history.
Modern horses walk on one finge/toe, whereas the "protohorses" walked on up to five. The progression from walking on 5 fingers/toe to 1 is all documented in the fossil record.

Answer 8

There are huge differences. Research human evolution, do the cave men look like you? Their brains for instance are immensly different.

Edit: There are some animals (alligators for instance) that have evolved very little. Evolution occurs when there is a need for it to occur. In simple words - If a species doesn't require a change in order to ensure continued existance, it won't change because a change would probably lessen their chances of survival.

Answer 9

Your right, they should look different. But you are mistaken that fossils look the same. The fossils are different and do support evolution.

Answer 10

Evolution does occurr, and I think the above people have explained this. Does that mean that we evolved from an earlier species of monkeys? No. And not all scientists believe that we did. (Mainly because of "the missing link") Really, we will never truly know what happened...whether you are looking at it from a scientific perspective or a religious perspective, because it is simply to long ago for us to be certain. I suppose that when we die, we will know one way or another.