There is no proof of evolution

I’ve seen enough to disagree with the assumption that all the ideas that surround and support the theory of evolution may not point to evolution at all.

Truth is truth - if it was true yesterday then it would be true today - if we are in the midst of evolution then we would see the chaos of “natural selection” today.

There is nothing in the fossil record that even hints at the idea that the hominid was anything but a hominid from the very begining.

If you say it takes millions of years for a species to “evolve” then we would see what gene pool the 2 legged ape man crawled out of.

I’m tired of everyone demanding that the evidence is there but there is none no matter how hard we stretch to come to the conclusion.

Usually when we see point A and point b we can start drawing a line at A and draw through B to come to a guess as to where C is and this is how evolution fundamentalists are teaching this.
We have C - humans - we have A - amoabic fossil but we don’t have B - the missing link…but we are told it doesn’t matter…just accept that this is how it happens despite not having the evidence that supports the theory.

I’ll leave the rest of this rather standard and soon to be eviscerated stuff alone, but it’s worth pointing out that allelic frequencies shift all the time in response to natural selection pressures.

And that’s all the time I’m going to waste on this.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

The National Geographic magazine recently checked Darwin and the evidence he had for evolution, then they asked and put this in the cover:

Was Darwin wrong?

The answer:

NO

Which we obviously don’t see:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35815

http://www.icp.ucl.ac.be/~opperd/parasites/chq_res2.html

And from a previous thread;

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/...greeneyed.shtml

Excellent! We are agreed then. Since natural selection is going on today (yesterday too!), this must be truth, and so there is plenty of proof of evolution! I’m glad we could clear that all up and move on.

On a different note, its sad that things are taking longer than Cecil every dreamed of…

-XT

I’m gonna go out on a limb on this… you really haven’t done much research into evolution at all, have you?

Must we read really biology journals for you? Is that our job now?

Of the various major hominid fossils we have (of which there are now thousands by the way), they split into distinct groups based on quite clear morphological differences which have distinct locales of prevalence at distinct time periods. The steady increase in brain-pan size over time, for instance, is undeniable.

The earliest hominids are undeniably more like ancestral apes than modern speices are. The overall direction of development is clear, the general ancestry is clear and no “missing link” is particularly necessary or expected to confirm this (future finds may nail down the very precise relationships between various species, or introduce new ones to the table, but they are simply not necessary to make the general conclusion solid). It’s confirmed in so many different ways (from genetics to ecology and so on) already that it’s a done deal.

And, not only are humans descended from apes. we are apes. If you try to define the concept of “ape” such that all gibbons, gorillas, chimps, and other major species that group together are included, and then define what makes them distinct from, say other primates, then the definition you get includes human beings in every respect.

How would YOU know that we aren’t seeing that everywhere today? Do you even understand what evolution predicts and suggests?

You’re asking for the “missing link” between humans and amoebas? Do you really think anyone is claiming that one day poof! an amoeba turned into a human being?!? I suppose the amoeba divided, and on the one hand, you had an amoeba, and on the other hand, you had a person. :dubious:

The whole notion of “missing links”, as popularly supposed, is pretty dubious anyway; the “Great Chain of Being” was more of a medieval concept that anything to do with modern biology. Amoebas, sponges, jellyfish, flatworms, sea urchins, lampreys, coelocanths, salamanders, lizards, platypuses, shrews, lemurs, baboons, chimpanzees, and people aren’t “links”, they’re all twigs in the branching Tree of Life.

Hilarious how that got turned around. :stuck_out_tongue:

This is actually true.

From the beginning of the hominids to current time, the fossil record is quite clear, we remained hominids during that entire time.

Heh, yep.

It often seems to blow people’s minds (if they are ever willing to listen) when they finally understand what taxonomy implies about the way life develops, and the way that all descendants of some group will almost always best still be described as belonging to that group. That works all the way back up the taxonomic system. Humans aren’t some different new thing from eukaryotes: we are a particular SORT of eukaryote, and still quite distinguishable AS a eukaryote.

Ya gotta admit that the mere existence of posters like Interest sorta challenges the whole evolutionary thesis wot.

Like, I thought we were meant to be smarter than our more primitive forebears?

:stuck_out_tongue:

In some respects, mainly due to our advancements in medical care and food distribution, we have all but suspended “natural selection”. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but it’s not obvious because it happens incrementally. Think about it: do you remember when you were short? Of course not- one day you woke up and you were 6 feet tall, because it happened so gradually you didn’t notice. Well, the same process is in action here. You can’t observe genetic adaptation first-hand. That doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Just like FinnAgain said, this is about as far as I am prepared to go given the OP.

No you haven’t.

Which we do.

Yes we do. (Answering the idea, and not the poor wording)

We do. That’s what all those other living things out there are.

Yes there is.

No it’s not.

Yes we do.

No we’re not.

And again, that’s all the time this is worth.

C&P from another board (but this is my own writing and I stand by it completely)

Part of the problem, I find, is that evolution is a rather broad topic and as such, it is impossible to describe it simultaneously as a whole and in detail. The only way to comprehend it is to examine bits of it in detail, one at a time, then sit back and fit them all together.

But this means it is almost inevitable in creation/evolution debates that the pro-creation side will always be able to accuse the pro-evolution side that they are either glossing over important detail (when we’re looking at the general picture), or making unreasonable generalisations (when we’re examining detail).

Case in point being the Peppered Moth; this example is so frequently (and rabidly) attacked by creationists that they seem to be under the impression that it has been completely debunked or otherwise demonstrated as worthless.
It hasn’t, because it was only ever a nice, neat illustration of how selective pressure can modify the distribution of phenotypes in populations. And it is still a nice, neat example of that:-
-Despite the fact that no peppered moth ever spontaneously morphed into an elephant before our very eyes.
-Despite the fact that photographs demonstrating the contrast between individuals and their environments were posed - the contrast still exists.
-Despite the fact that both light and dark varieties may have existed alongside each other.

-None of these accusations matter, because it wasn’t supposed to be a standalone example that proves the whole of evolution, all by itself, it was supposed to be an example of selective pressure, which it was, and still is.

And even if you manage to get a creationist to acknowledge this, you’ll find that when you zoom out, then zoom in to focus on another area of detail (say, the question of whether mutations can give rise to new genetic function), very often, the creationist appears to have forgotten all about previously acknowledging that natural selection is a real phenomenon, and will argue something like “Yeah, sure, random mutations can happen, but why should the beneficial ones win out over all those detrimental ones?”. It’s like trying to nail jelly to a tree, using your head as a hammer.
A when assembling a jigsaw puzzle; you have to be able to simultaneously comprehend:
-The shape of the individual pieces
-The fragmentary pictures on the pieces
-The way the pieces fit together physically
-The way the pictures match on adjacent pieces
-The emerging picture as a whole

You can’t declare the puzzle invalid just because you’ve only cursorily glanced at a couple of pieces, or you don’t like the look of the emerging picture.

Moderator’s Note: OK, let’s remember, debate the poster’s argument, not insult the poster personally. Or else open up a Pit thread.

Yeah, fair call MEBuckner. Sorry for the insinuation that the poster was dumber than a bunch of fossilised bones.
I won’t do it again. :wink:

Ahem, what about Cro Magnon man ?

My favourite is something from a book called ‘The Monkey Puzzle’ written by a pair of scientists whose speciality is unconnected with the area.

They postulated that we are immature gorillas

Anyway, their gem was:

Anyone who thinks that Neanderthal Man died out, needs to take a trip on the New York subway.

While I am at it, I strongly suspect that there is something more than pure natural selection at work

  • the nearest I can call it is ‘Natural Adaption’

I would not be at all surprized if our environment tinkered with our DNA

This is a remarkably incoherent sentence. Parsed, it actually says, “I believe the theory of evolution.”