If evolution is true then where is the evidence?

Question

The overwhelming evidence. You can't really expect anyone to believe that there is only one skeleton supporting your theory and that skeleton is Lucy. Where is her mate? Or did "she" rely on asexual reproduction? Why have scientists found more evidence of this event that you claim has been occurring for millions of years? Do you understand why people are skeptical of it when you can't even find evidence and you've been looking for over a century?

If it were true, wouldn't there be 1,000,000 times the evidence?


I think there would be.

drink if you want, but answer the question.

you date the fossils from the rocks and the rocks from the fossils - circular reasoning.

Still no evidence.

where are the hundreds or thousands of skeletons like we have fossils of bacteria and fish?

They don't exist! evolution is lie then, isn't it?

No, not from a religious standpoint. From a proof of evolution standpoint - why is there not an overwhelming amount of evidence after at least a century of digging?

Evolution has cherry picked "evidence" more than Creationism

If it is a fact, then why do respectable scientists still refer to it as a theory? If it is a theory, it has not been proven to be a fact, which shows the prejudice of biologists.

Do ANY of you evolutionists have the ability to discern between micro evoluion (changes within a species) and macroevolution (change from one species to another)????????

"Extrapolating from such limited data ..."

I could not have said it better!

.

Truth be told, archeology has been around since the 18th century (and some sources say longer), so now that you've been digging for three centuries, why do you not have more evidence?

At least the Christians can find the Dead Sea Scrolls. Where are your missing linkS? Where is the evidence that Lucy wasn't a deformation of a species and that she was the only one of her kind (and therefore could not further the evolutionary chain)?

It is called critical thinking. Try developing and using it.

Answer 1

There are strong indications of patterns of physical or behavioral change to achieve a greater chance of survivability or adaptability, with the same purpose in mind, but they are limited and selective in nature. To state that all life on earth came from a brew where a couple of amoeba-like entities were swimming and then were hit by lightning and, voila!, Einstein was born, is pure poppycock. Extrapolating from such limited data to reach the conclusion that nothing on earth has been stable but is a part of constant evolving is simply not reasonable. Evolution has its place but it's not all encompassing; it is also part of the grand plan. Anyone who has an ounce of faith in the Almighty knows better.

Answer 2

"If evolution is true then where is the evidence? The overwhelming evidence." - The overwhelming evidence is in the fossil record.

"You can't really expect anyone to believe that there is only one skeleton supporting your theory and that skeleton is Lucy." - What liar told you that the theory of evolution is based only upon the skeleton of Lucy. Anyone who tells you that is a fool or a liar.

"Where is her mate? Or did 'she' rely on asexual reproduction?" - You are only parading your ignorance here.

"Why have scientists found more evidence of this event that you claim has been occurring for millions of years?" - Scientists have found tons of evidence for evolution. The problem is that fundamentalist Christians (I was one of those once) refuse to look at the evidence with an open mind.

You need to learn some biology, not just the religious dogma that you allow your preacher and your church to shove down your throat.

BTW you accuse us of "circular reasoning" yet refuse to admit that you follow circular reasoning yourself.

Rule #1 - The Bible contains no error.
Rule #2 - Upon finding error in Bible, refer to Rule #1.
Rule #3 - If error in Bible persists, rest assured that the error is in your understanding of the Bible because the Bible contains no error (See Rule #1).

Edit - You wrote, "If it is a fact, then why do respectable scientists still refer to it as a theory? If it is a theory, it has not been proven to be a fact, which shows the prejudice of biologists." - Your misuse of the word "theory" shows your dismal lack of scientific knowledge, which I'm not surprised coming from a creationist. Look at the following article

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

to see just what a scientific theory actually is.
.

Answer 3

I get the impression you asked this just to try to prove evolution wrong, not because you want to learn. Up to you, but you ought to at least learn something about it if you want to debate it. Frankly, your question, and your edits, show how little you understand about evolution and how science works. I can see that the first person to reply linked 29+Evidences of Macro evolution. If you are actually interested in learning about the evidence for evolution, you should read it. It'll take time to read, it's long. Also, I can see that someone has already given you a link to the scientific definition of "theory". Read that and you will see why it's still a theory. Gravity is also still a theory for the same reason. At least if you read what evolution is actually about, you will not be arguing from ignorance next time you try to argue against it. If you still want to.

As for the creationist sites linked by Rev Albert Einstein, they contain a lot of misrepresentations. Sorry, but if you repeat stuff from there to people who are knowledgeable about the relevant science, you will just look ignorant. If you do read the creationist links, I suggest you check their claims on the site I've linked. Most creationist claims are addressed there.

Oh, and BTW, if you want to pick up points raised in replies, it's better to put user names in your edit. Then it will be clearer which reply you are addressing.

Answer 4

Well do you mean aside from the MRSA bug now afflicting US schoolchildren? I should think that should be convincing enough to most people.

Perhaps a wave or two of H5N1 depopulating 20 or 30% of everyone would be more vicerally effective at providing "evidence" but clearly since the 1918 Spanish Influenza has apparently done nothing to convince some folks, perhaps it's just as well, that we accept intellectual laziness for what it is.

However, to answer your question, Lucy and other ancient fossils will never comprise what we consider a complete fossil record. There is no genetic marker for Lucy per se, it's all morphology which is actually remarkably accurate when you consider the simple and straightforward methods imployed. Lucy has a series of morphological markers on the transition from simians to proto-humans to humans.

As far as why we haven't found more or more members of her tribe or what have you, - who knows - that was three million years ago, and maybe she got lost and separated, I do know that I can barely keep track of my socks.

However with respect to evolution, the facts have been in for nearly 160 years now,science simply doesn't just have the speculations and arguments or theories and hypotheses of Darwin, Wallace and others.

We have the hard core mathematics of Mendel - which by all rights should end all discussion right here. This priest is constantly being "forgotten" by those who critizise evolution on theological grounds, but not to worry he was a notable Abbot in a monestary in the Hapsburg Empire.

His contribution ended forever the philosophical argument route to debate since the mathematics were proved and the process of heredity was - when Mendel was finished at least partially understood. The data from his experiments is irrefutable and the conclusions are both mathematically provable and obvious.

Having said that, it gets to the apallingly poor educational efforts of science in the United States.

Worse is that these days we have POWERFUL mathematical models which are approaching the ability to PREDICT what evolution might produce. This would make evolution a law of science rather than just an extremely well supported theory.

See "Genetic Modelling", "Genetic Algorithms" or "a New Kind of Science".

The final nail in the coffin for debate on this matter was in 1953 when Watson and Crick discovered the actual mechanicism of heredity - DNA.

Through DNA and RNA we KNOW that there are errors in replication, errors in translation, and rise to mutation all the time.

Since the rate of mutation is so constant, we can plot changes over time, this has in fact helped in a variety of other areas of paeleology and anthropology, such that we can KNOW what the path of mankind was - to some broad extent without having books or even alot of archeological evidence.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

We EVEN know there is an EPIGENOME, whereby the cells can be affected by actions taken by the individual over time, so exposure to chemicals, or famine or disease may affect the children and grand-children of later generations.

What is fascinating is that through our deeper knowledge of genetics, we have been able to trace back tens of thousands of years to when humans were actually physically different from our current selves.

Comparison at the genetic level between ourselves and Chimpanzee's has shown that we are MUCH more similar - from a genetic perspective , than we all are probably comfortable with, it's even speculated that the differences may lie in large part in the Epigenetic rather than the actual DNA differences betweeen apes and humans.

Answer 5

Evolutionary theory continues to be supported by evidence and is the foundation of the whole field of biology today. The vast majority of those who work in biological science would tell you that evolution is a fact, there is no doubt it occured. Where the theory part comes in is in understanding the mechanisms that drive evolution and exactly how different lineages and structures evolved. New findings in molecular biology support and expand our understanding of evolution. Creationism is not science because it has absolutely no evidence. It simply tries to pick holes in evolutionary theory and then say that if evolution is not true then our God must have done it. That is not science. Even if evolution were to turn out to be in error creationists would need to put forward some positive, objective, tangible proof that a supernatural being spoke or breathed into dirt and created life in its present form.

If you are really interested in the current lines of evidence for evolution here are some sites. I also recommend a good current evolution textbook.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session3/index.html

Answer 6

Um. Just so you know how scientific theory works, theories are formed based on scientific evidence. There would be no theory of evolution if there were no evidence. It's religion that poses the theory first and then seeks proof.

Secondly the theory you are looking for support for is not evolution, you're describing a theory of early neolithic lifestyle. That is not what evolution describes. Evolution says that species change over time. This is a known fact, but it doesn't speak to who Lucy mated with. That's another theory altogether.

Answer 7

Here's a tidbit of evidence: we know that the human bones changed; first man was really tall, then he got increasingly shorter, and began to get taller again. (This is just on average, as there are still lots of short people). So obviously the bodies of creatures on earth change over time. That's what evolution is. I'm not saying there was some Big Bang and we magically appeared here and THEN started to change lol, that really doesn't make any sense. But the whole changing thing..that I agree with. About 4 billion years ago when Earth "came into being," there were no creatures except for micro organisms, because with the harsh conditions they couldn't survive..yada yada..blahblah. And then the conditions changed, and dinosaurs, etc, appeared for the first time. So don't go so far as to say that we don't change. That's just stupid.

Answer 8

If you're asking this from a religious standpoint then where is the evidence in that? How is someone supposed to believe that a 'man' appeared out of nowhere and created everything around us in 7 days?

Go and read 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin. There's more evidence of evolution in there then there is of creation in all testaments of the bible.

Answer 9

Are you kidding me? Please go take a middle school biology class. Try all fossils ever discovered, vestigial structures, DNA, bacteria, etc. Evolution is one of the most supported aspects of science there is.
Don't listen to Rev. Albert Einstein. There's absolutely no evidence against evolution, otherwise it would be revised and replaced with a new theory. That's how science works. Christians have no understanding of evolution. ALL fossils are transitional fossils because all organisms are in a state of change.

edit- Also, a 'theory' in science isn't just a guess, it's a supported model. In science, a theory can't be a theory without evidence that can't be disproved.

Answer 10

Well, go to either Wiki, answers, or just a scientific website, and get your evidence there. Also, why ask this in the R&S section, unless you're just here to confirm in your disbelief? If I had a question about evolution, I'd go to the Science forum, ask it there, and get answers of the logical kind. Why ask it in here though?