Do you believe in evolution?

[DiSoRderLY 141]

You might be right on your first point, however, can the same can be said for evolutionist?? I think so.

The same applies to many evolutionists, most of whom refuse to even deal with any debate about creationists

You are both absolutely right!! The same applies to many evolutionists...

Note that I'm not an evolutionist, nor do I believe in any god. I do belief there is something more between heaven and earth, I'm just not religious (ietsism).

 

I also like to be provocative, hence the statements that I made. I was going to follow up sooner, but time wasn't on my side ;)

Oh, so these people: http://creation.com/creation-scientists don't exist? There are some pretty high-up scientists there! I'd hardly accept that "all scientists" believe in evolution. And Darwin's theory might be more than a hundred years old, but creation theory goes back since the beginning of time... does that make it more irrefutable? Hardly. Both have their merits, and both might be correct - although I personally would believe in six-day creation, I accept that evolution is still a reasonable scientific theory, despite being one I believe from the evidence around to be incorrect.

Of course evolution cannot be denied, just take a look around! Everyone is surrounded by proof. Natural selection within all populations of organisms leads to variation within species, this is caused by mutation, isolation, degeneration and recombination of genes. This fact has been proven over and over again, all scientist agree upon this!! You could call it micro-evolution...

 

But there is a catch!! What people do not agree upon is, whether this causes to form new species over time! Up to date macro-evolution has not been proven. The theory still stands...

Edited December 3, 2013 by DiSoRderLY

[rampagerhino 67]

Um... The caterpillar thing- that is not evolution. That is metamorphosis. Just a correction there. I agree that there are examples of adding genetic information and that the other side could present proof for their creation hypothesis.

Yea, your right. My mistake. :wacko: But no one can say that there are not any animals/insects that do not undergo extreme changes during their life span.

[already.dead 360]

But woulnd't it be racist to say neanderthals ain't humans? just because they dont look like us dont mean they aint. we all dont look alike either. africans, asians, europeans etc.

when we meet new types of humans, escpecially in the old days, we always called them ''animals'' etc. what if the neanderthals WERE humans?

 

also u havent actually answered my question about evolution. Ok it takes forever to change, slow changes over long periods of time. BUT why do we only find some things? we dont see a ''mix'' between the 2 animals. we only see what happens after it evolved or whatever. where are the creatures in between, the missing links? there isnt evidence that some things changed into others, where are the fossils? also why did all the animals these current animals evolve from go extinct? why dont they get ''evolved'' into again?

[Piety 70]

Sorry I don't find it appealing that evolution exists

[r_GoldRock30 68]

But woulnd't it be racist to say neanderthals ain't humans? just because they dont look like us dont mean they aint. we all dont look alike either. africans, asians, europeans etc.

when we meet new types of humans, escpecially in the old days, we always called them ''animals'' etc. what if the neanderthals WERE humans?

That's really quite an absurd question. It's like saying "Wouldn't it be rascist to say that orangutans aren't chimpanzees?"... It's not just a question of appearance - Neanderthals were a different species altogether. Different anatomy, different psychology. This image might help:

 

 

There was a bit of inter-breeding between our ancestors and the Neanderthals, leading to some of the human races we see today. However, our ancestors and the Neanderthals were two distinct species.

 

also u havent actually answered my question about evolution. Ok it takes forever to change, slow changes over long periods of time. BUT why do we only find some things? we dont see a ''mix'' between the 2 animals. we only see what happens after it evolved or whatever. where are the creatures in between, the missing links?

My answer:

 

In my opinion (and that of the majority of scientists), all animals are, in essence, half-evolved. All animals constantly continue to evolve, albeit at a very slow rate; we ourselves are half-evolved from prehistoric man, but we have yet to evolve further. In order words, all animals are constantly evolving.

 

Take the example of us. We have an appendix... but apart from having to have it removed every now and then when it becomes inflamed, what is it for? Well, nothing really, as far as doctors/scientists can tell... It's simply what remains of our old digestive systems, say scientists; as we consumed a lot more vegetables/plants than we do now, the appendix was needed to digest all that extra fibre. But once we started eating more meat, the appendix was no longer needed. In that way, we're half-evolved ourselves - we still have unnecessary bits and pieces in our bodies from the past.

As I said before, we ourselves are the 'missing links' - we are halway through the process of evolving from our prehistoric human ancestors, to whatever super-duper awesome humanoid species will descend from us millions of years in the future.

 

If you ask that question again, I will ignore it. I would instead encourage you to read my response, ask about any part of my explanation you wish me to clarify, and specifically analyse and respond to my answer in your next post(s).

 

there isnt evidence that some things changed into others, where are the fossils? also why did all the animals these current animals evolve from go extinct? why dont they get ''evolved'' into again?

Fossils of prehistoric animals are everywhere, there's a load of them being discovered to this day... How d'you think we know so much about dinosaurs, for example...?

 

As for your last question, that's the whole point... New animals evolved from the old, so the old ones died out. It's like new technology, developed from old technology, rendering that old technology obsolete, for example.

 

Evolution does not quite work like Pokemon - an iPhone 4 will not suddenly change into an iPhone 5 in your hand! The iPhone 5 is developed from the iPhone 4 - people discard their iPhone 4s when they get the newer iPhone 5s. Simple as. In the same way, the animals of an old species will reproduce, and then their offspring will reproduce, then the next set will reproduce... gradually altering the whole species and forming new ones over time, much in the same way as new versions of phones are developed. An iPhone 1 is still the same 'species' as an iPhone 5, as an iPhone 5 is merely an improved descendant in the same species (after 5 years or so) - however, these come from older 'species' (e.g. a brick-like mobile phone, made 25 years ago) which have now completely died out.

_________________________

 

Before we continue our discussion, I challenge all the non-evolutionists here to watch all of the following video:

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

 

This is because I fear that some of you lot do not fully understand how the concept works. I, at least, have taken the time to understand creationism (though I may not agree with it)... so it's only fair that you take the time to understand evolution.

 

At the moment, our debate is becoming counter-productive, simply due to a lack of understanding. I know it's 11 minutes long, but that video will really help debunk the common myths you might associate with the theory, as well as answering @already.dead's questions in full.

Edited December 2, 2013 by r_GoldRock30

[Aaron.Bohot 0]

Aaron, the website you have given me I have seen multiple times. It's full of propaganda and bad arguments about evolution. They at the start address abiogenesis, something that is not evolution.

Their next claim is that evolutionary process cannot add information to the genes. This is false, for we have found that information can be added with duplication and fusion of certain genes/proteins/enzymes. Here's an article to that point as well:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Their next claim I find funny. They say that evolution is only drawings and there is no evidence for it. So far I have given evidence. Then they go on about how we're not apes but humans... So should we just ignore the fusion of the chromosomes to shape our genetic code? Should we ignore anatomical similarities? And all other things I have presented in my first post.

So their main argument is that life can't come from non life (proven false by abiogenesis) and the second is that information cannot be added to the genes. I will ignore the part of the website that treats me like an illiterate person not knowing what Christmas is just because I'm an atheist.

 

Either way, the site is full of propaganda that I do not find to be persuasive at all.

 

 

 

 

Evolution is not an excuse for anything, it shows the change of life throughout the ages and explains our being. Humans are animals, if you really think we are some kind of species above others and cannot be put in the same group with apes (not monkeys, we are apes or primates) you are wrong. Which god? And the creation of the world is irrelevant to evolution. American nation under god, huh... I'm not American but I've checked the American constitution. There is no mentioning of god. It is written that the state will not invoke religion into it's politics. The people who wrote it were deists too.

 

Why can't I post a link to the source more informed than myself? Again, where did life come from is not evolution.

Achilles, I find what you say quite interesting. So you do not find Answers in Genesis to be convincing. Whether that is with the information presented or with your biases on the information remains to be seen, but that aside, your post contains a couple of errors. You state that the creation of the world is irrelevant to the issue, yet in your last sentence you ask where life came from if not evolution. You have your answer, but you deem it irrelevant. I do, however, agree with you that we are physically animals. We are Homo Sapiens, and primates. However, that is no reason to assume that we are descended from lower forms. You also seem to think that abiogenesis has proven that life can come from non-life. I must point out that science is not capable of proving anything. It is by nature limited by our observation skills, and what can be measured. Thus, every scientific result, no matter how supported, is tentative. more information on Abiogenesis can be found here: http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html. I notice you ask, which god? That is a good point. Every religion that has a god would claim some form of Creation. The God I mean, though, is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

Achilles, I find what you say quite interesting. So you do not find Answers in Genesis to be convincing. Whether that is with the information presented or with your biases on the information remains to be seen, but that aside, your post contains a couple of errors. You state that the creation of the world is irrelevant to the issue, yet in your last sentence you ask where life came from if not evolution. You have your answer, but you deem it irrelevant. I do, however, agree with you that we are physically animals. We are Homo Sapiens, and primates. However, that is no reason to assume that we are descended from lower forms. You also seem to think that abiogenesis has proven that life can come from non-life. I must point out that science is not capable of proving anything. It is by nature limited by our observation skills, and what can be measured. Thus, every scientific result, no matter how supported, is tentative. more information on Abiogenesis can be found here: http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html. I notice you ask, which god? That is a good point. Every religion that has a god would claim some form of Creation. The God I mean, though, is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.

I was not the one who asked where life came from, it was already.dead I believe (you'll notice I didn't put a question mark on my last sentence). And what I've said is that evolution is NOT relevant to the creation of the world or the first life, but the change of living organisms. Abiogenesis has currently given us proof that life can come from non life, of course if that's what has happened on Earth is disputable. We have come close to understanding it however and further results will appear. But that would be going off topic. Science has so far given us a decent capability to make predictable models of reality. It has a track record of being the best way of distinguishing fact from fiction and has served to give us all we have now.

So far I have shown evidence of change over time in living beings, proving evolution to be true. GoldRock has also put up a very nice video explaining exactly what evolution is. I assume you will make a case for intelligent design?  Some more evidence if you wish me to present is this--

 

If you look at a dogs paw for example (it can be found on other animals) you will see the  dewclaw. This "thumb" is an unneeded part as it never touches the ground and it cannot be moved by the animals muscles. And also, you'll notice the heel on the animal doesn't touch the ground either. This is connected to the ancestor of these animals. So, this shows evolution rather than intelligent design, for a designer would not put not needed stuff into the design (specially an all powerful and perfect one)

 

Next you can see the emu. It's "wing" has only one finger and in the end a claw. This limb cannot be moved because the muscles cannot do it, other than movement while breathing.  And you can see manatees that have nails at the end of their fins. Whales have a similar bone pattern in their fins.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Fen-Harel

[Aaron.Bohot 0]

I was not the one who asked where life came from, it was already.dead I believe (you'll notice I didn't put a question mark on my last sentence). And what I've said is that evolution is NOT relevant to the creation of the world or the first life, but the change of living organisms. Abiogenesis has currently given us proof that life can come from non life, of course if that's what has happened on Earth is disputable. We have come close to understanding it however and further results will appear. But that would be going off topic. Science has so far given us a decent capability to make predictable models of reality. It has a track record of being the best way of distinguishing fact from fiction and has served to give us all we have now.

So far I have shown evidence of change over time in living beings, proving evolution to be true. GoldRock has also put up a very nice video explaining exactly what evolution is. I assume you will make a case for intelligent design?  Some more evidence if you wish me to present is this--

 

If you look at a dogs paw for example (it can be found on other animals) you will see the  dewclaw. This "thumb" is an unneeded part as it never touches the ground and it cannot be moved by the animals muscles. And also, you'll notice the heel on the animal doesn't touch the ground either. This is connected to the ancestor of these animals. So, this shows evolution rather than intelligent design, for a designer would not put not needed stuff into the design (specially an all powerful and perfect one)

 

Next you can see the emu. It's "wing" has only one finger and in the end a claw. This limb cannot be moved because the muscles cannot do it, other than movement while breathing.  And you can see manatees that have nails at the end of their fins. Whales have a similar bone pattern in their fins.

While you may have some good points, I again see some critical errors in your reasoning, not counting the fact that I am not seeing any evidence for abiogenesis in your post. Just because we do not know the purpose of the dewclaw on dogs and the finger on the emu does not mean it has no purpose. While it may be considered circumstantial evidence for your claim, it is nothing more. You say a couple sentences about science, all of which I agree with heartily. However, you seem to think that evolution is the result of this science, whereas it has never been observed outside of microevolution. There is no indicator that macroevolution (what I assume you are referring to when you say evolution) ever occurred. Science really has no evidence for it outside of possibilities. On a bit of a side note, I am curious, what branch of evolutionist thought do you hail from, the gradualist side or the punctualist side?

Edited December 3, 2013 by Aaron.Bohot

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

While you may have some good points, I again see some critical errors in your reasoning, not counting the fact that I am not seeing any evidence for abiogenesis in your post. Just because we do not know the purpose of the dewclaw on dogs and the finger on the emu does not mean it has no purpose. While it may be considered circumstantial evidence for your claim, it is nothing more. You say a couple sentences about science, all of which I agree with heartily. However, you seem to think that evolution is the result of this science, whereas it has never been observed outside of microevolution. There is no indicator that macroevolution (what I assume you are referring to when you say evolution) ever occurred. Science really has no evidence for it outside of possibilities. On a bit of a side note, I am curious, what branch of evolutionist thought do you hail from, the gradualist side or the punctualist side?

I am not here to prove abiogenesis, I am here defending the case for evolution. What purpose could a limb that can't be moved possibly have? It is unusable at this point and it has no purpose to be there. Both can be traced to a specific ancestor where the use of the limb is shown, but as evolution progresses the use is lost. Both micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just on different time scales, and if we can't see something directly doesn't mean we can't show it using other means such as genetic data, fossil records, anatomical similarities. Science gives us the best possible explanation on what is happening in reality, it might be wrong, but all evidence points otherwise. You'll have to excuse my lack of English knowledge on the last question, as it is not my main language. I will have to assume that your question is whether I think evolution is a slow or sudden process? If that is the question, I believe it is a slow process.

[sam131192 113]

Glitches in big bang theory

 

The Big Bang theory cannot account for the matter in the universe. Their equations require there to be much more matter in the universe than is actually detectable. To compensate for this, they suppose that there is matter, which is not only undetected but actually, by definition, undetectable. They call this dark matter. There is a similar problem with the energy in the universe, so they postulate dark energy. These concepts are really a fiddle, to make their equations work. It is noteworthy that creationist cosmologies do not require the invention of dark matter or dark energy.

Another problem with the Big Bang theory is the so-called Horizon Problem. This problem is caused by Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, a concept that Big Bangers like to claim, erroneously, supports their cosmology.

CMB is a radiation detectable in all directions in the universe, raising the temperature of space itself to about 2.5K. The fact that this temperature is the same in all directions is significant. A randomized Big Bang would give rise to an energetically heterogeneous universe, with “hot spots” and “cold spots.” But the universe is no longer heterogeneous. It is observably energetically homogeneous. So, in order to even out the temperatures, energy must have flowed around the universe. This would have flowed at a speed no greater than the speed of light. So energy from any hot spot could only have traveled for a maximum of 13.7 billion years, since that is the age that Big Bangers ascribe to the universe. However, the universe is much bigger than 13.7 billion light years across. So there is insufficient time, in the Big Bang theory, to account for an energetically homogeneous universe, as observed by CMB measurements.

[sam131192 113]

How does that make any sense? When you die you decompose (cells die due to lack of oxygen, chemicals in your body then cause certain reaction etc. You can google the exact process), and there are worms and organisms who would basically eat you. You don't simply turn to dust by magic and it certainly does not prove any god. And humans did not come from dust, modern humans come after an intercourse of their biological parents. If you wish to argue how the "first" human(s) came to this planet please present evidence for it.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/from-dust-to-dust

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

Glitches in big bang theory

 

The Big Bang theory cannot account for the matter in the universe. Their equations require there to be much more matter in the universe than is actually detectable. To compensate for this, they suppose that there is matter, which is not only undetected but actually, by definition, undetectable. They call this dark matter. There is a similar problem with the energy in the universe, so they postulate dark energy. These concepts are really a fiddle, to make their equations work. It is noteworthy that creationist cosmologies do not require the invention of dark matter or dark energy.

Another problem with the Big Bang theory is the so-called Horizon Problem. This problem is caused by Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, a concept that Big Bangers like to claim, erroneously, supports their cosmology.

CMB is a radiation detectable in all directions in the universe, raising the temperature of space itself to about 2.5K. The fact that this temperature is the same in all directions is significant. A randomized Big Bang would give rise to an energetically heterogeneous universe, with “hot spots” and “cold spots.” But the universe is no longer heterogeneous. It is observably energetically homogeneous. So, in order to even out the temperatures, energy must have flowed around the universe. This would have flowed at a speed no greater than the speed of light. So energy from any hot spot could only have traveled for a maximum of 13.7 billion years, since that is the age that Big Bangers ascribe to the universe. However, the universe is much bigger than 13.7 billion light years across. So there is insufficient time, in the Big Bang theory, to account for an energetically homogeneous universe, as observed by CMB measurements.

Who is talking about the Big Bang? This is the topic about evolution...

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/from-dust-to-dust

I have already addressed that site, and they don't even know what evolution is. That source only tries to defend creation "science" by offering false teachings of evolution.

[sam131192 113]

Who is talking about the Big Bang? This is the topic about evolution...

 

 

I have already addressed that site, and they don't even know what evolution is. That source only tries to defend creation "science" by offering false teachings of evolution.

Nah I'm kinda bored with all this biology talk as I'm not a bio student myself. And big bang theory is allegedly where all this came from.

[sam131192 113]

Almost 60% not in favour . How is that for an "eroding" belief?

Edited December 3, 2013 by sam131192

[r_GoldRock30 68]

Almost 60% not in favour . How is that for an "eroding" belief?

There are many religious people who support evolution, and many non-religious people who refute evolution. Your point here is not relevant.

[Aaron.Bohot 0]

I am not here to prove abiogenesis, I am here defending the case for evolution. What purpose could a limb that can't be moved possibly have? It is unusable at this point and it has no purpose to be there. Both can be traced to a specific ancestor where the use of the limb is shown, but as evolution progresses the use is lost. Both micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just on different time scales, and if we can't see something directly doesn't mean we can't show it using other means such as genetic data, fossil records, anatomical similarities. Science gives us the best possible explanation on what is happening in reality, it might be wrong, but all evidence points otherwise. You'll have to excuse my lack of English knowledge on the last question, as it is not my main language. I will have to assume that your question is whether I think evolution is a slow or sudden process? If that is the question, I believe it is a slow process.

Achilles, I am much impressed. English is my first, and at this point only, language. I could not tell that it was not yours. I hope I am not the first to state that you have clearly mastered it. On a different note, can we really use science to trace back to a specific ancestor, since there are no evolutionary links to connect the dots with? All that science gives us in that respect are multiple animals with a certain similar feature. That is not enough reason to presume that they evolved from a common ancestor, even if some of them appear pointless. I will be the first to say that I do not know everything there is to know about biology, and I do think we as a race have reached the end of our discoveries on the subject. If I may, how long do you think the slow process took? In other words, how old is the earth in your opinion?

Edited December 3, 2013 by Aaron.Bohot

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

Achilles, I am much impressed. English is my first, and at this point only, language. I could not tell that it was not yours. I hope I am not the first to state that you have clearly mastered it. On a different note, can we really use science to trace back to a specific ancestor, since there are no evolutionary links to connect the dots with? All that science gives us in that respect are multiple animals with a certain similar feature. That is not enough reason to presume that they evolved from a common ancestor, even if some of them appear pointless. I will be the first to say that I do not know everything there is to know about biology, and I do think we as a race have reached the end of our discoveries on the subject. If I may, how long do you think the slow process took? In other words, how old is the earth in your opinion?

The problem with linking all the transitional forms is that evolution has only small changes throughout generations and it's hard to find fossilized animals. For an example, a homo-erectus does not simply give birth to a homo-sapiens. It gradually changes until we see a new species appear. The process takes many generations (about 50 000 generations or millions of years) to fully see the changes to a modern creature.

Multiple animals with similar features (these features does not imply on "look alike"-s, it means that it's shown in the DNA itself, shown into the shape of bones and the is the most logical conclusion is we are related) shows that animals are related, and from that we can see their ancestors. As we have notably changed from our ancestors it shows we are evolving (changing).

And our understanding of the links is pretty nice, we have a enough of fossils to form species models of almost all animals (I don't have exact statistics now) and we have an idea of how other missing links, if there are any, would look like.

The Earth is about 4.54 billions of years old.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Fen-Harel

[IC-Ironclad-IC 12]

I just found out how we looked like earlier

 

this is our ancestor, he shares so much DNA  we must have evolved from him wow :O

[r_GoldRock30 68]

I just found out how we looked like earlier

 

this is our ancestor, he shares so much DNA we must have evolved from him wow :O

Well, looks like our discussion here has ended - especially if that is your only response to the points raised :P

[IC-Ironclad-IC 12]

Naw, i have something more to say, just can't be bothered to take the time yet, so i just threw in some random stuff xD

[DrSaint 176]

I was here watching and I waited to see a reasonable prove, which has to be undeniable and can provide as hard evidence to prove creationism … but I haven’t seen that.

 

Some people here asked me to bring my evidence, evidence to prove my devotion to evolution, as I said evidence is everywhere, one just have to look for them with open mind.

 

I also believe we should share our knowledge with others, and that is exactly what I am going to do here.

 

One of the greatest undeniable proves to evolution is hidden in human embryology, please have a look at organogenesis, to avoid time waste let’s take one organ, kidney.

Kidney in its embryological progress goes through this amazing journey of most immature form of “kidney” (pronephros) to very sophisticated and complex organ (metanephros), in this process of nephrogenesis we can see the existing prehistoric elements and how it becomes an evolutionized organ. Fascinating and exciting knowledge comes when you understand how kidney progressed with the gaining body mass to manage toxic byproducts.

 

Each and every organ in human body (not only in humans though) goes through this process, another fascinating system to watch in its genesis is human respiratory system!  

 

Sincerely

DrSaint  :)

[r_Zesx0 39]

To be honest evolution is something that goes even against science so I don't get why many scientists use it for science. You see, nothing in our day has had a creature that had changed into another creature. The only explenation to why there are so many similar animal kinds is because two different kind of animal races breeded a bit like that dog called bullteryer, I think. Even if there are animals that have features a bit like ours doesn't mean we evolved of them, otherways all living creatures would be human by now. Btw, if one thinks that earth, full of volcano euruptions turned into what we have today, then its just full of rubbish. Its like saying that Mars could terraform on its own!

 

Evolution is impossible because DNA can't be changed.

 

well, even been a religious person doesn't escape the evidence that is there.

Evidence of what exactly? There isn't any evidence of it. Besides, Darwin then became a christian and tried to fight against his own theory, did you know that?

Edited December 5, 2013 by r_Zesx0

[Fen-Harel 1,176]

To be honest evolution is something that goes even against science so I don't get why many scientists use it for science. You see, nothing in our day has had a creature that had changed into another creature. The only explenation to why there are so many similar animal kinds is because two different kind of animal races breeded a bit like that dog called bullteryer, I think. Even if there are animals that have features a bit like ours doesn't mean we evolved of them, otherways all living creatures would be human by now. Btw, if one thinks that earth, full of volcano euruptions turned into what we have today, then its just full of rubbish. Its like saying that Mars could terraform on its own!

 

Evolution is impossible because DNA can't be changed.

 

 

Evidence of what exactly? There isn't any evidence of it. Besides, Darwin then became a christian and tried to fight against his own theory, did you know that?

No... the reason we don't see animals coming from other animals is because the process takes millions of years and we can't see it in out lifetime. DNA evidence, anatomical evidence, embryological evidence, fossilized evidence... No, just because we're humans doesn't mean we are all other animals should evolve into us. Adaptability and survival is the goal, not becoming a human (and we ourselves are not completely evolved). The Earth is a lot colder than it used to be, and when it cooled down it was probably billions of years ago. DNA can be changed. I have shown evidence in each of my posts showing change and adaptability true natural selection.

What Darwin's views on religion were does not reduce the credibility of his theory. We have gained a huge amount of information compared to him.

If you want more evidence about adaptability and change through natural selection here's a nice example of it-- The Indonesian salamanders once started to live in a cave, they were in the dark without sunlight. Interesting thing is that, as time passed, they lost their eyes. Reason was the eyes were unneeded and could get infected, a needless risk.

[Aaron.Bohot 0]

The problem with linking all the transitional forms is that evolution has only small changes throughout generations and it's hard to find fossilized animals. For an example, a homo-erectus does not simply give birth to a homo-sapiens. It gradually changes until we see a new species appear. The process takes many generations (about 50 000 generations or millions of years) to fully see the changes to a modern creature.

Multiple animals with similar features (these features does not imply on "look alike"-s, it means that it's shown in the DNA itself, shown into the shape of bones and the is the most logical conclusion is we are related) shows that animals are related, and from that we can see their ancestors. As we have notably changed from our ancestors it shows we are evolving (changing).

And our understanding of the links is pretty nice, we have a enough of fossils to form species models of almost all animals (I don't have exact statistics now) and we have an idea of how other missing links, if there are any, would look like.

The Earth is about 4.54 billions of years old.

Based on the few bones we have of our ancestors, there is no reason to believe that we evolved. It was common practice, for example, among many Native American tribes, to mold the shape of their children's heads over time. Does that mean they evolved? I think not. However, if one of their skulls were found without this knowledge, that conclusion could feasibly be reached. There is a lot of guesswork with bones, since animals were domesticated by humans and thus, in death, the bones would be in the same location. In other words, all the evidence for human evolution is rather shabby guesswork and artist's impressions. Hardly scientific. If it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, then in 4.54 billion years, 4,540 evolutionary forms for any one animal should be present. How many of those forms are assumed to have contained bone matter, or any other hard matter that would have fossilized? I find it interesting that out of all those forms, we have no reliable fossils. Any fossils we may have are again, guesswork. Out of curiosity, what is your explanation for the Cambrian explosion?

[Aaron.Bohot 0]

The problem with linking all the transitional forms is that evolution has only small changes throughout generations and it's hard to find fossilized animals. For an example, a homo-erectus does not simply give birth to a homo-sapiens. It gradually changes until we see a new species appear. The process takes many generations (about 50 000 generations or millions of years) to fully see the changes to a modern creature.

Multiple animals with similar features (these features does not imply on "look alike"-s, it means that it's shown in the DNA itself, shown into the shape of bones and the is the most logical conclusion is we are related) shows that animals are related, and from that we can see their ancestors. As we have notably changed from our ancestors it shows we are evolving (changing).

And our understanding of the links is pretty nice, we have a enough of fossils to form species models of almost all animals (I don't have exact statistics now) and we have an idea of how other missing links, if there are any, would look like.

The Earth is about 4.54 billions of years old.

Based on the few bones we have of our ancestors, there is no reason to believe that we evolved. It was common practice, for example, among many Native American tribes, to mold the shape of their children's heads over time. Does that mean they evolved? I think not. However, if one of their skulls were found without this knowledge, that conclusion could feasibly be reached. There is a lot of guesswork with bones, since animals were domesticated by humans and thus, in death, the bones would be in the same location. In other words, all the evidence for human evolution is rather shabby guesswork and artist's impressions. Hardly scientific. If it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, then in 4.54 billion years, 4,540 evolutionary forms for any one animal should be present. How many of those forms are assumed to have contained bone matter, or any other hard matter that would have fossilized? I find it interesting that out of all those forms, we have no reliable fossils for evolutionary links. Any fossils we may have are again, guesswork. Out of curiosity, what is your explanation for the Cambrian explosion?