What is your proof of evolution?

Question

To those that believe the earth is millions of yours old, and there is no GOD (YHVH), were is your proof?
1) It can not be in the fossils, because there are no transitional forms. They have all been positively identified as something else.
2) It can not be in carbon dating, it is based on 4 assumptions that can not be proven, and 1 was proven wrong.
3) It can not be in radium/argon dating, because this has been proven wrong several times.
4) It can not be in the geological columns, because that has been proven to have all been laid in a very short time. (trees and animals buried going thru several layers)
so please, tell me... what is your proof?
Before you respond, please read the best answer here... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al_RIQwWwmFkNtARnbfVa5vsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071128053646AAHetbn&show=7#profile-info-a8BIAEc3aa

Answer 1

**It is amazing to me that laymen (like the first poster) who push evolution theory so vehemently don't even know what most evolutionary scientists have said about the fossil record....

Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in 'Origin of Species'; " But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists today agree.....

." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagarms) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

"Evolution REQUIRES intermediate forms between species and paleontology DOES NOT provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).

According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER ITS KIND"....which is directly consistent with the fossil record.

The thing to remember is that evolution is just a theory, a speculation, an unproven assumption....and NOT supported by the fossil record.

Answer 2

Rather than give you a thousand examples from a hundred different fields of science, I'll just give you my own favourite example. It definitively proves human/chimp common ancestry (btw if you have a rebuttal to this I'd love to hear it). So according to evolution, humans and chimps shared a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. So if that is true there should be similarities in our DNA and there are, but there is one major difference. They have 24 pairs of chromosomes, we have 23. Now you can't just lose a chromosome, the embryo would be non-viable. Deletion of an entire chromosome is lethal. So there are 2 possibilities: 1. A chromosome fusion occurred in the human lineage AFTER the split from the common ancestor, leaving us with one less pair, or 2. evolution is false. So if we do have a fused chromosome we should be able to find it. Chromosomes have markers on the end called teleomeres, but if we have a fused chromosome we should have one chromosome with inactive teleomeres in the middle where they don't belong. If we don't find it, evolution isn't true. Turns out it's human chromosome #2. It's possible to pinpoint the exact fusion site to within a dozen base pairs (out of 3 billion). Human chromosome #2 resulted in the head to head fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates, and they correspond directly to chimp chromosomes #12 and #12. The reason for that is because they are arranged by size, #1 being the biggest. So that's it, definitive DNA proof that we share a common ancestry with chimpanzees. Evolution is fact.

Answer 3

Why are you asking a Science question in the R & S section ? Are you scared of getting an answer you don’t like from scientists who had a better education than you ?

I thought there were thousands of Transitional forms . Even if there were none , that wouldn’t disprove Evolution . Why would God create so many slightly differing animals every 20 million years or so and lay their fossils on top of one another to make it look as though evolution occurred ?

The animals we see today in the fields and jungles are transitional forms , if you hang around a 100 million years or so , you will see them change, a few like the alligator won’t change because they are ideally suited to their environment.

Incidentally the Sikhs also think that man cam from Rocks and Christians think man came from a handful of dust. So abiogenesis is true for all 3 of us .

Answer 4

I like how you had nine thumbs down, zero thumbs up. That's a nice touch.

Evolution is simply a mutation. Do you disbelieve in mutations? No? Okay, lets continue.

Let's say there was a type of bird who never easily got the food they wanted from inside a tree, because it's beak was too short to access it. Well, this bird eventually mated and had a baby bird. This baby bird, however, looked different; it's beak was long and narrow. A simple genetic mutation.

However, this mutation proved to be BENEFICIAL. The bird was more easily able to grasp the insects inside the tree, and this bird became the healthiest of them all. So he got mates several times, passing down his genetic traits to his young. The other birds, who could still not properly access their food, either went extinct or migrated, while the long-beaked birds thrived.

This is evolution. It's not as strange sounding as you think--and it's actually been observed.

Scientists have SEEN this happen. That is my proof. That is why evolution has been in ALL of my science (and history) textbooks since fifth grade, why it is treated as fact by everyone with a brain, and why animals are still alive today.

With the earth constantly changing, if all animals and humans stayed the same, we'd all die out. Evolution is a defensive mechanism that responds to nature--we need it to stay alive.

Answer 5

1) There are transitional forms and they're all around you. The problem is you don't recognise them as such. A fundie expects them to be half something and half something else but nature doesn't work that way.

2) Carbon dating is only good for a period of 40,000 years. I prefer Potassium/Argon dating that has a half life of 1.25 billion years.

3) Potassium/Argon, not Radium/Argon. Two different things.

4) It hasn't been proven to be laid in a short time, only dishonest fundies with an agenda try to prove it that way.

Evolution has been shown, proven and accepted by the majority of the population and this includes most Xians. It's only a small but vocal minority of fundibots down in the states that seem to believe otherwise.

Answer 6

ok im hindu i beleive in evolution

where is your proof of YHVH? im not saying God is fake
btw carbon dating cannot uncover million years

there are other tecniques that are more accurate than carbon dating that go back to billions
radium and argon dating have been proven right more than false so dont argue with that


where is my proof of evolution? humans were first lactos interlorant
now we are tolerant to lactos

wombats used to grow with pouches upwards
now they evolved having pouches facing downwards

humans were alot different before than now

you cant say just because the bible says it its true
ok here is one
some of the oldest documents called the vedas in hinduism and indian culture supports the earth being 4.5 billions of years old, evolution of the mind and body

im sorry but that best answer was junk

Answer 7

It would be easier to take this question seriously if its information were a little more accurate.

No transitional forms? It's a complex business, and only a tiny fraction of things ever get fossilised.

Carbon dating is irrelevant to evolutionary theory, because the half life of C-14 is far too small. And I'd love to know which assumption has been proved wrong. Perhaps that's why archaeologists still place so much emphasis on carbon dates.

Argon dating proven wrong - just remind me of the details please.

'Geological columns' - I'd love to see the evidence. Ten thousand geologists would too, I expect.

Answer 8

Don't have a proof. Study the word 'theory' in 'theory of evolution' for a moment. It's the best fit for the evidence so far.

1) Showing a scant understanding of fossil formation here, and the probabilities of finding a particular form.
2) But it can be based on the multitude of other isotope dating methods which have been shown to be much more accurate.
3) See above.
4) Again, this really more shows a lack of understanding of geostrata and their formation than disproving it.

Answer 9

The most important thing is that, for most people, this is an unnecessary fight.

Nothing in science disproves the existence of a Higher Power who created Man. For most religious people, this is just quibbling over the details of how it was done.

There are fundamentalists on both sides of the issue. Those who, with no scientific basis, deny the existence of God, and those who deny science. Most of us, believers or not, should just refuse to participate in this worthless struggle, which damages us all.

One possibility I consider, with uncharitable feelings, is that both religious fundamentalists and Richard Dawson will be very surprised one day to wake up in the same place, condemned for the strife they have inflicted on the world.

Really good website from a man who is both a person of strong faith, and a good scientist. His label, for what's it's worth, is Old Earth Creationist.

http://www.reasons.org/

"The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies. Our mission is to bring that life-changing truth to as many people as possible, both believers and unbelievers."

Personally, I believe, due to overwhelming evidence, that the Earth is very old, that life started simply, and became more complex. That would seem to me to be undeniable science. I have no provable opinion on exactly how that happened or why.

Answer 10

You see, the problem with religious folk like yourself is if some of the pieces of the puzzle do not fit together, you're ready to throw it all out. That is NOT how science works. Of course we're going to gain knowledge and discover things that may prove our old theories wrong, or may modify them significantly. Science is not black and white. Science is a ginormous gray area that is constantly being expanded upon. If you read what Darwin published, he had a lot of stuff wrong, but that does not mean the theory of evolution is wrong. There are a lot of holes in some of the above methods you listed (although it is worded in such a creationists propaganda way), but that does not mean they're invalid.
For example: you are correct, there are no transitional forms. Why is that? It's because evolution does not happen that way. It was proposed by Darwin that it happens that way, but it was proven incorrect, yet creationists still like to harp on it.
http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/teaching/te2a.htm

Anyway, the bottom line is creationists have a poor understanding of science, and therefore you spew out this sort of nonsense and make fools of yourselves.

Answer 11

"It can not be in the fossils, because there are no transitional forms. They have all been positively identified as something else".

We're surrounded by transitional forms, and you're simply lying.

"It can not be in the geological columns, because that has been proven to have all been laid in a very short time."

Lying again.

Can we come up with a proof that will somehow magically prevent creationists from lying about evolution? Nope.

Here's my best shot: sit down and ask yourself

"Why do I have to lie so much to defend my belief that evolution is false? If the creationists were right, wouldn't they be able to tell the truth about this stuff? Shouldn't they be able to defend their position without having to deny the facts?"

If you sit yourself down and force yourself to be honest, you'll most certainly see that there's something seriously wrong with the creationist position.