What do you consider to be scientific proof that Evolution is how we were created?

Question

This is an honest question. I really want to hear what the proof is behind Evolution. Everyone always says they believe in Evolution because there is scientific evidence proofing it. Just give me the proof that is without a doubt factual. I don't need to hear any sarcasim since I did not give any just use your brain and tell me please I want to know.

Thank You

Gorgeous

You don't even know me so why judge me, wow I can't believe some people and you didn't even answer the question. Thanks for nothing

Answer 1

I could get into a lengthy debate about this, but in order to keep this short and sweet, I will just offer the one fact that I have heard on this topic that sticks out in my mind the most. The DNA of a human being and the DNA of a chimpanzee are 98% identical. If you want, leave me a message on my 360 page and we can have an intelligent and RESPECTFUL debate.

Answer 2

First off, it's proving not profing.

Anyways, the five things they use in biology to show that we probably came about through evolution. The ones I can remember off the top of my head in a sleepy daze are:

Ontogeny's Recapitulates Philology (sp): General term for the fact that a fetus develops evolutionary. It starts out one celled, then can be classified as the lowest animal, then jellyfish like then fish like, ect.

I forget the technical term for the next thing, but it is that all animals have the same basic structures. For instance, that a whales fin, a birds wind and a human hand all have the same number of bones and similar structure to them. There is no reason a whale should have fingers unless it was evolved from an animal that did. Did you know they also have feet bones that stay inside and are no longer used. Now, why would god put them there?

Similar DNA structure.

Fossil records.

These are just a few things I can think of right now. Sorry, tired.

Answer 3

This space is far too short to really explain it. The Reader's Digest version:
fossil evidence shows that life (all species) change over time. Those that change in a way that promotes survivability tend to pass those genes along while those that don't, don't (cuz they don't live to pass on their genes).

We can see this in modern life in the dog; we know all modern dogs of all breeds originally came from the wolf. Prior to man domesticating the canine there was only kind of "dog." Now there are thousands. While that was the result of selective breeding it is nonetheless proof that a given genome is not a static entity and DOES change either through random happenstance or deliberate breeding.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe Homo Sapiens is any different than any other animal on this planet. Indeed, there is a wealth of evidence to strongly suggest Man is just like every other life form on this planet; his genome allows change.

Thus change is inevitable and the changes that promote survivability are the ones that persist. THAT is evolution in a nutshell. Evolution does NOT say that Man evolved from monkeys. Evolution DOES suggest that all primates have a common ancestor (just as all dogs have the wolf as a common ancestor).

Anyone who tells you that evolution says man evolved from apes is, intentionally or unintentionally, telling you a fallacy. Said fallacy has come into common practice as a way to control the beliefs of others.

Answer 4

For the most part, 99% of biology is based on evolution. They can determine, not only that we are related to monkeys, but actually know at what point we split off from monkies via a common ancestor. And they can do this simply by looking at our genetics. There is also the observeable evidence. They have seen gene pools change and getetics of a population influenced by the environment. They have seen species split because of environemental conditions and form new species. They ahve the fossils evidence showing all the tranisional fossils.

Basically, evolution is supported to the point where anyone educated on the science will not be able to deny it.

Answer 5

Prediction: If evolution were true, we would see a fossil record that consists of simplified, 'primitive' forms appearing first, and more complex, 'advanced' forms appearing later.

Results: Simplified, 'primitive' fossil forms appear first in the fossil record, with more complex forms appearing later.

Conclusion: Evolution is a valid theory.

Prediction: If evolution were true, all organisms would be built from essentially the same building blocks - i.e. similar proteins and enzymes, similar biochemical pathways, similarities between inheritance systems of genetic material.

Results: Organisms do share essentially the same biochemical building blocks.

Conclusion: Evolution is a valid theory.

Prediction: If evolution were true, we would see specific similarities in the genetic material (DNA) of all organisms, with the degree of similarity related to their distance physiologically and via the fossil record.

Results: We do see these similarities between organisms, with differences related to their physiological divergence (i.e. humans and chimps are 98% identical, humans and corn are considerably less identical, but still have considerable similarity).

Conclusion: Evolution is a valid theory.

Prediction: If evolution were true, we would see a distribution of animals and plants around the world based on where they first evolved, and the geological changes in those regions over time.

Results: We do see this distribution of organisms - with marsupials remaining in Australia (after it broke off from Gondwanaland), and South America, islands colonized by limited numbers of species, with current diversity related to isolation and age of the island, etc.

Conclusion: Evolution is a valid theory.

Prediction: Characters found in an organism should be traceable to direct descent or minor modification from the condition found in an anatomically similar ancestral organism.

Results: There are anatomical characters that can be traced through earlier fossil forms, and the divergence of those characters can be related to genetic distance between species.

Conclusion: Evolution is a valid theory.

Prediction: Two populations of organisms, isolated and unable to reproduce between populations will eventually accumulate sufficient genetic differences (drift and mutations) that they are unable to successfully reproduce even if re-united.

Results: This has happened, most notably with polychaete worms taken from the wild by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute back in the 1930s. The lab worms are no longer able to reproduce with the wild worms.

Conclusion: Evolution is a valid theory.

These are just a few, highly simplified predictions borne out by evolutionary theory. The talkorigins site mentioned by many others will give you more details on any of these, as well as many more pieces of evidence.

Note that other proposed explanations such as intelligent design or Biblical Creation either cannot make similar predictions, or their predictions do not match the results actually seen in the real world evidence. Thus, they are rejected as valid theories.

Answer 6

No sarcasm....evolution is a broad subject with virtually an infinite amount of information. If you want evolution proved to you, I suggest you thoroughly research the subject. Start in Talk Origins and go from there.

Edit: You have gotten many good answers. Why do you ignore them and give attention only to the ones you don't like? Shouldn't it be the other way around? What does this say about why you really asked this question?

Answer 7

The facts of evolution are people tracing the changes in the land and animals over time. Through fossils they can see how the world was millions of years ago and track the progression of changes that led to how things are now. Carbon dating and all that.
Also, using some experiments, evolution can be duplicated. Such as, with breeding/selecting fruit fly traits and only breeding ones with certain traits.

Answer 8

As an Atheist I certainly do not claim to be anything more than a normal, reasonable person who happens to not believe in any god(s). That simply does not make me a scientist of any kind. Why are Atheists always assumed to have this vast, comprehensive knowledge. We don't. We get our information from the same places you could if you would just open your eyes and look.

I think evolution is correct because smarter peeps than me say it is. Their opinions I respect because I know they base their calculations and findings on actual physical evidence, not the religious ramblings of a bunch of ancient Hebrew sheep herders.

Answer 9

There are literally millions of predictions that the original theory made that have turned out to be true. Fossil Succession alone is enough to prove the large idea.

See the fossils are sorted in the geology. A relative order that life showed up on the planet can be determinate independent of any dating. There is no way a single random event like the flood would sort things so pristinely worldwide. Here is a nice simple chart on a US Government website that has no agenda: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

This chart is a little oversimplified, but it shows 7 major cuts on the animal side, and 6 on the plant side. A flowering plant is NEVER found in a Pennsylvania period Geologic layer for instance. If creationism was right, they should be as common there as they are in Cretaceous layers. They aren't there at all. Conifers (Pines) showed up in the late Pennsylvania period. They should be as common in Devonian layers as they are in the Jurassic layers. They aren't there at all.

The actual record is much more complex. Individual species don't show up out of order. So a T-Rex wouldn't be in any layer other than a Jurassic one.

There are way way way more arguments than this one. I just like it because it is easy to understand and the flood answer doesn't even sound reasonable to the uneducated.

Answer 10

The fossil record showing changes in species over time. Then DNA. Not just that is shows humans are closely related to chimpanzees, but using predictable mutations in DNA it can be calculated when populations diverged both in to separate species and also separate groups in the same species. Then being the timeline in the fossil record pretty mutch matches the timeline in the genetic record.