Why is evolution a big thing? it hasn't even been proved?

Question

Darwin's Expiriments concluded by saying that Non-flowering plants evolved into Flowering Plants, yet to date there are no flowers or evidence of flowers that show the mutating processes to become Flowering plants, Why?

Jim, tell me why World renowned anthropologist Louis Leakey said "There is no one missing link-ther are hundreds of missing links"

another thing Jim, as Scientific Journalist Milton Said, "It was the absence of transitional fossils that first made me question Darwins Idea of gradual change."

and another thing, wasn't it Sir Francis Crick that proposed the concept of pansperima? not only that, Newton's paradigms were proven right back then, be cause it was a simple answer to some old questions. he was proven wrong by einstein, so now we have new paradigms until they are disproven, darwin is next

Answer 1

I guess you did not take high school biology. Or perhaps you were not taught evolution in that biology class. Very few people would ever doubt the proof behind evolution. You'd have to have been in a coma or a devote Christian with some serious issues.

Evolution is a fact. You are wrong about flowering plants. As with most things, time will yield an answer.

ANTHOPHYTA Evolution and Diversity
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs300/angio1.htm

There is something you folks need to understand. Evolution in it's simplest form is change. Life on this planet is continually changing. This planet is always changing. You cant see nor envision it. Your minds are closed or you just cant see beyond today and yesterday is gone. Chaos is the rule. Not balance, not status, not controlled.

Another key find is the evolution of bees. Bees of course are directly tied with flowering plants.

100-million-year-old discovery pushes bees' evolutionary history back 35 million years
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov06/bee.evolution.sb.html

Answer 2

> Jim, tell me why World renowned anthropologist Louis Leakey said "There is no one missing link-ther are hundreds of missing links"

Did he really say that? Well. There's a whole continuity of now-extinct organisms running the spectrum from ape to us. The Leakeys and others have found scores of fossils. We certainly don't have fossil examples of every population, or even species, that existed.

> another thing Jim, as Scientific Journalist Milton Said, "It was the absence of transitional fossils that first made me question Darwins Idea of gradual change."

Scientific Journalist Milton, if he really said that, is a bonehead. Guess what? There are boneheads in all fields.

Every fossil whose line didn't terminate in extinction is a transitional fossil. Every living species that's not going extinct is a transitional species.

Answer 3

Actually, there is a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution...however, you must ask yourself what you believe evolution to mean. A lot of people get hung up on the idea that evolution means we had to come from apes or ape-like creatures. This is not what evolution is about.

Evolution is simply a change in living things over time. On a very micro scale, the evidence of evolution is staring back at you every time you look in the mirror. You are a microevolution...a combination of your parents (not a clone)...a slight change over time. That is evolution.

Just because we don't have all the answers, doesn't mean that evolution doesn't exist. Are there missing links? Of course! Will they all be found? Probably never. We can only work with what we've got and the ability to use common sense and the scientific method.

Beware of the statement that evolution hasn't been proven. Science can't PROVE anything. Science has yet to disprove the theory of evolution. In the same breath, science has yet to disprove the existence of God. But, there is evidence to support both.

Answer 4

I think in the debate about evolution, we get some of the topics mixed. On the large scale, scientists pretty much agree that evolution, or change, occurs and has occurred for billions of years. In relation to humans and how exactly humans have evolved is where scientists really begin to disagree.

It's not that some people think humans are the only creatures that just appeared, but for multiple reasons each indication that a certain argument may be right about human evolution is normally met with a contradicting fact that disproves that argument.

Actually, science is filled with arguments like this. We have common assumptions about how the world was once one large continent or how animals migrated and were related, but even these have some big holes, fortunately people don't really worry about it.

In the case of human evolution, there are giant holes, and there's a lot evidence that many people wish we could just ignore. But none of this really disproves the larger sense of evolution, only that we don't really understand the micro levels.

In regards to Darwin and the plants. Darwin isn't the best source for modern understands of evolution. He popularized the concept, but didn't 'create' it. He also wasn't a trained scientist, but a clergy man with scientific interest. But most of all, he died before we even began combining his ideas of natuaral selection with the ideas of genes.

Answer 5

At university we looked at transitional fossils from non to flowering plants so I am not sure where you are getting your info from!! There are several fossils where the earliest types of flowering plants are those that look like magnolia flowers, but these are not extinct ( although the magnolia still exists)...also in the wood department there are still plants that have wood partly like non-flowering and partly flowering eg monkey puzzle, Agathis spp and there are many other plants that OVERALL show the TRENDS in evolution of these plants as well....ok we don;t have all the transitional fossils but fossilisation is a RARE process.....only a tiny fraction of things ever make it to being a fossil;.

Also to comment....Darwin's idea of gradualism is not accepted now, its the idea of punucated equilibria where there are times of rapid change ( where many species can be formed over say a million or so years) and then little change for long periods...these times are usually associated with climatic changes.....Around 99% of new species will not succeed!

Answer 6

Evolution is evidence looking for an explanation. Those who reject EVIDENCE and rely on belief have an explanation looking for evidence.

The volume of evidence for evolution is immense. Unfortunately, many ignoramuses are unaware of the fossil record that includes organisms as small as bacteria. They figure that because one aspect of the fossil record is incomplete that that proves evolution is false. At the same time they conclude that if the fossil record is incomplete than their belief in creation must be fact. If your car does not start, is that proof that earth worms are soft?

Such reasoning is NOT science.

To those who would conclude that because the fossil record is incomplete and, therefore, evolution is not valid, I would ask a simple question ... Why, after they flew about 35 yards, did the Wright brothers not build a Saturn V rocket and fly to the moon the very next day?

Well, ignoramuses, have you figured out the answer? I doubt it, so I'll explain. The discoveries that allowed going to the moon took TIME to discover JUST as all of the gaps in the fossil record have, and will continue, to take time to discover.

Just because all of the gaps in the fossil record have not been filled does NOT mean that evolution is NOT fact and that your belief in a gray haired old man who floats in the clouds and will damn you to a post-death eternity of hell and gruesome pain if you don't accept his son into your heart, but he loves you, IS true. Keep in mind that your belief in that gray haired man was ingrained in you at the same time you developed your belief in Santa Claus.

Answer 7

Answering your second question (that's the one that looks like the third question, but the second sentence isn't a question) Apparently evolution on earth has taken hundreds of million of years, but we only noticed a hundred odd years ago because a bunch of arsedusches had been telling everyone for thousands of years that if they didn't believe that an all powerful being created everything, they would have their balls cut off. So maybe it will take a while before evolutionary biologists find out the missing link in plant evolution that happened over 60,000,000 years ago. Either that or Brahma might decide to show up and explain it to us

Answer 8

Why did all the humans evolve the EXACT same if evolution is determined by survival of the fittest? Kind of funny how all human have all the same body parts after millions of years yet every OTHER animal evolved different from their cousin....

HMMM

Read about the founder of evolution and how he was a racist

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter3.php

Is this what we want our kids believing?

Answer 9

That's a question I asked, I prove some guy wrong and he didn't even reply to my question after that. He tried to say we got here from the molecules and stuff from the laws of thermodynamics, and I that ,that law contradicted itself and I prove to him that Darwin even admit he was wrong, look at his quotes, and I prove to him without even using the bible !

Answer 10

They have been thinking for this for already a very long time maybe because they ant to discover the origin of life and to track life from other planets too... in cells, eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes according to many references.