For Atheist only. What proof is there in evolution? Please be specific.?

Answer 1

You are flogging a dead horse asking this question, because you won't get any decent answers. They won't answer it because they can't answer it, although they always try to pretend they can.
I have never had a proper answer to this, all you ever get is something like "fossils prove it" which, of course anyone who studies the subject in any depth knows is rubbish.
All fossils prove is that; there are billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth. Fossils are evidence of rapid and often catastrophic burial, which is actually fatal to uniformitarian geology and evolution theory which relies on a multi-million year timescale.

It is ironic that 'bongernet' above, uses Louis Pasteur's discoveries as supposed evidence of evolution, when, in fact, they are evidence against the primordial soup and all other naturalistic origin of life stories which are essential to get evolution up and running in the first place. His findings,i.e the Law of Biogenesis, plus Information Theory, plus - - - the Laws of Cause and Effect, the Law of Probability and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all rule out as impossible a naturalistic origin of life scenario.
So evolution falls at the very first hurdle and is thus rendered just an unscientific fable. This is all we need, we don't need to consider any other aspect of the evolution story, it is clearly unscientific from the very beginning and belongs in the category of mythology, not science.

Edit
I am afraid - - Joe Atheist - - was paying too much attention in his science classes, he was apparently brainwashed by the pro-evolution curriculum into believing unproven speculation as fact, without even bothering to question it.
He has also remained unquestioning ever since. Evolutionists love this passive, sheeplike attitude, that is why they come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who has the audacity to question their perceived wisdom. Just look at the venom poured out against creationists, or anyone else, who challenges the doctrine of Saint Darwin by the likes of Richard Dawkins. What is they afraid of?
If evolution is the irrefutable fact evolutionists claim, they could just treat any challenge with a wry smile, just as they would do with anyone who questioned gravity.

Answer 2

Do two things, walk into a library and read the biology section, followed by the geology section, then walk into a museum, not the creation museums, and observe the fossils.

What you'll find in a nutshell: the ratios of radioactive isotopes can be used to determine age and several are used to date fossils, carbon-14 dating is used for younger remains and primarily in archeology. Fossils of any given species are found with organisms that lived with them and the layer that contains them is above fossils that preceded them and below following fossils, the ratios of isotopes confirm this and the pattern/order is repeated without variation i.e. they aren't mixed up, ever. This is a pattern that is predictable and repeated across the world without exception. There are literally thousand of different fossilized species including transitional species that have been classified and dated. Species slowly appear and change across time and become others but at times there appears to be a flurry of activity.

There are many other pieces of evidence in the realms of genetics, geology, astrophysics, chemistry and other branches of science that collaborate and confirm this process, and a complete proof would take many volumes of both information and discussion.

Edit:
Unfortunately AMDG was not paying attention in either his physics nor his geology classes, and most likely slept through the rest of science classes as well. There is no valid young earth theory as all of the "evidence" presented for it is based on half cooked understanding of science. A casual examination of most "young earth proofs" will show that they are based on invalid assumptions i.e. the Niagara river and canyon has existed for all time at that location, or other deceptions. Another common misconception is that Carbon-14 is used to date fossils and that radioactive dating relies on a consistent amount of material present. This is why the term "ratio" is important as it accounts for variations in the original quantity. Also it is important to note that several different isotopes are tested for and compared.

Answer 3

First, and most important, evolution is not a continuous chain ... with one species *replacing* the one before it like this year's car model replacing last year's. Instead, evolution is like a constantly branching *bush*. So a primate species will *branch* when two populations of the species get isolated from each other, and start developing in different ways ... so that a chimp branch will get more and more like modern chimps, and another hominid branch will get more and more like modern humans.

Branching, branching, branching. I can't stress that enough. You can't understand evolution if you don't understand branching.

Second, technically, humans *ARE* apes. That is just a category of 'tailless primates', that excludes monkeys. Some people feel insulted by this ... but it's just a category ... it is no more insulting to know you are an ape than it is insulting to say you are a primate, or a mammal, or a vertebrate.

Third, when asking whether we "evolved from apes" you need to define what you mean by "ape." If you mean any of the non-human species of apes alive today (chimps, gorillas, orang utans, gibbons), then NO we did not evolve from any of those species. A modern species cannot be the *ancestor* of another modern species.

But if you mean from another member of the ape family of primates ... then yes, since we still *are* apes, then trivially there is an ancestor was also such an ape.

Fourth, Dawkins is *absolutely correct* ... every creature alive today is indeed 'fully evolved.' It is a mistake to think of an ape like a chimp as some sort of 'half-evolved human' .. it is a *fully-evolved chimp* ... just as highly evolved for his environment as we are for ours. A chimp is the product of exactly the same number of years of evolution as we are. Since the split from a common ancestor 3-5 million years ago, chimps have been evolving to become more 'chimplike' just as humans have been evolving to become more 'human like'.

Hope that answers your question. - secretsauce

Answer 4

DNA, fossil record...

What clinched it for me, not being a scientist at all, is the fact that I have never heard one single honest argument against it from creationists. Not one. At best, they simply haven't understood what evolution theory actually is, and at worst they deliberately misrepresent it. Kent Hovind is the worst offender on that count.

If you really want to understand it, a good place to start would be Richard Dawkins' five part documentary, "Growing Up In The Universe". It is on youtube, but it's cut up into ten minute segments, five per episode, which gets a little annoying, also it's very clearly taken from a f*cked videotape. So, while I recommend the programme, you should probably get it from somewhere else.

Answer 5

This would be a good place for you to start reading:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

By the way:

* Most theists accept evolution.

* Evolution is every much a fact as the theory of gravity.
* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.
* There are no alternative scientific theories.
* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...
* And zero evidence against it.
* The 'discussion' is actually educated people trying to educate others.
* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.
* The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the united states.

Answer 6

I live on a caribbean island in a group of islands. There are poison dart frogs on all of these islands. But each island has its own coloration to its frogs. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute did a lot of studies with those frogs and ended up tossing the frogs back onto islands that were not their original islands. They all died. They had not EVOLVED the proper colors for that island and preditors that knew to avoid the right colors didn't and they were all killed. They are all identical as a species the only difference is the color. These islands are young biologically, but given a few hundred thousand years they might develop into different species, but the process of EVOLUTION has already begun in that they cannot survive out of their island environment.

Answer 7

First, wrong section.

Second, nobody said "evolution is proven", and if they did say that, they have a bad understanding of science. Evolution isn't dogmatic truth, merely the best available theory (and don't misunderstand the use of the word "theory" here, as I use it scientifically).

However, the process of evolution (evolution actually happening) is a fact - e.g. it has empirical evidence to support it. The theory of *how* the process happens is still a theory.

Answer 8

IN evolution, huh? There's proof that natural selection alters species' DNA over time. There's proof that humans were not created as it is described in the Bible, and various other mythologies. Inherent in THAT is proof that God, if real, is not what the Bible describes.

Answer 9

What proof is there in evolution? Ok....here is just a tiny bit of the proof....Are you an exact copy of your parents? Evolution is Descent with modification. Now rewind that Millions of years.....seriously

Answer 10

Read Darwin's The Origin of Species.

Open your eyes and take a look around at the earth we live in. Look at the plants and animals...and humans. Everything is different. There are thousands of different species of plants and animals. No two humans looks the same. Just think outside the box for a minute. It'll come to you.