Where is the evidence for macroevolution?

Question

How do we know that these radiocarbon-dated (an inexact science) fossils are of ascendant species of humans, apes etc.? How do we know that these creatures were not just extinct species? Humans aren't infallible and in the past scientists have made glaring errors (claiming the Earth is flat!).

I know there is micro-evolution but can we really be sure about macro-evolution? Believing in it surely requires faith, something that many scientists campaign against?

Sorry to rain on your parade 'Super'Atheist, but radiocarbon IS the method of finding the age of fossils!

Seahock, I'm not arguing I'm asked what your opinions are, I'm not saying mine is any better than your's!

Answer 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Be sure to read it carefully.

And carbon dating is not used for dating fossils. It's useless for anything older than 50,000 years.

Answer 2

The people who claimed that the Earth was flat lived over 500 years ago, and weren't scientists. That can not be compared to modern science in any way, shape, or form.

Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over long periods of time. Many small changes happening over long periods of time will eventually appear to be large changes. Think of it like this...you have a can of white paint. Every single day, you add one drop of black paint. Slowly, over a long time, the white paint will grow darker and darker. Eventually, you have black paint. It’s the same sort of idea here. With each generation there might be something different that is no more significant that one drop of paint in a bucket. But over tens of thousands—hundreds of thousands—MILLIONS of years, those changes are going to add up. You don't even need to be a scientist to understand the concept. There is NO "faith" required to understand macro-evolution.

And radio-carbon dating might not be 100% correct 100% of the time, but it is correct often enough that when the results come up the same time and time again, you can count on them being relatively sound. For those that point at the few times results will come up incorrect, and then claim that radio-carbon dating doesn't work, how do you explain the fact that the results are correct the majority of the time?

If you're truly interested in understanding evolution, read this site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Answer 3

The entire micro/macro distinction is entirely false. It was made up by religious people not scientists. Speciation doesn't work that way. You just can't draw a line and say, "This is where the new species starts." We have evidence that evolution works. We follow that by tracing the relationships between different species. Remember, evolution is a bush, not a tree.

BTW, it was the religious leaders who decided that the world was flat. "Science" as we know it didn't even exist back then. Great thinkers from the time of the ancient greeks knew the truth and were forced to kill themselves for it.

Answer 4

your argument has made glaring errors in the past by claiming the earth was flat is a rather outdated one. outdated since before the time of the ancient greeks. ancient people knew the earth wasn't flat because if you watch a ship sail out to sea after a while the ship seems to "sink" into the horizon. after seeing the ship come back it is obvious the earth isnt flat but is round. an ancient Greek by the name of Eratosthenes about 200 years before Jesus calculated the circumference of the earth. Christopher Columbus knew the earth wasnt flat at during his time only extremely stupid people thought it was. try a more recent argument to prove that science has had "glaring errors" the one you used is just to old to be of any use to you.

microevolution leads to macroevolution. we know that some ancient species are related to modern species because there is a small amount of testing that can be done to prove that. dont ask me what testing that is, why dont you ask the people in the science section to explain it to you.

and how old are these fossils you are talking about? any dinosaur fossil cant be dated using carbon dating because carbon dating is only good upto 60,000 years. anything older than that, oh lets say the dinosaurs, has to be done another way.

Answer 5

With so many millions of species in the world today, it does seem verystrange that there are ABSOLUTELY NO transitional species or evidence of any in the fossil record!
100% of all skull shapes used to construct quasi human beings for museums and exibitits, still exist in living human and simian animals today
the "science" of evolution is the most pseudo- of all the 'real' sciences and belings in the same boat and craniology and palm readings!
Many books have been filled with the impossabilities presented by evolution and the constant and consistant answer is some version of "we just haven't found it yet"
Human beings (among other animal groups) suffer and are at a great disadvantage when only 1 chromosone is wrong (down's syndrome, for example)
Beyond thae viability of mutant change, there exists interspecies breeding. This almost invariably leads to steril offspring, which, of course, is not good for continuing the new animal line!
the truth of science is observation. As of yet, we have seen nothing more than trait dominance adapting to environment, but no change in genetic material or change from one species to another!

Answer 6

genetics for one, scientists know about shared genes and the ages of mutations that separated species so can draw family trees between them.
Also anatomy, for instance, while at your computer you are sitting on your coccyx, it is obviously a left over from when our ancestors had tails.

I agree that as a theory, like all theories, it may change or be disguarded if it no longer fits the evidence but it has fitted it so far.
I think because religious fundamentalists disagree with evolution, they want to argue with it on their turf which is faith and so claim its a belief. Its not on that playing field, its a scientific theory that will only be used so long as its useful in explaining evidence, but as soon as it's not it'll be dumped.

As for dating fossils, there's Thermoluminescent Dating, Potassium-Argon Dating, Uranium-Lead Dating and Fission-Track Dating as well as Carbon dating.

Answer 7

* Carbon dating:

1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.

2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).

* Not all radiometric dating is carbon dating.

* Your bible claims the earth is flat (a circle is a two dimensional shape)

* 29 evidences for macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Answer 8

You want evidence. Start with the fact that whales have femur bones (leg bones that usually only appear in land animals). That right there is enought to tell you that it was at one time a land animal that migrated to the water for the sake of its survival. So what you're saying is that since we can't be sure that its all a lie and its just faith, and god is the answer?

Answer 9

To believe in to evolution is the same as believe that TV or a Comp during millions of years of evolution came out from a single cell organism. By the way, where is proof of the evolving of eyes? it always bothered me. I did ask my teacher once and had a very cold shoulder ever since

Answer 10

What a change Philistine to Zionist.