Why do you believe in evolution?

Question

alright people. i want actual PROOF. nothing like "cuz we look similar to monkeys."

and make sure u talk about MACRO evolution. not micro. we all know microevolution is a fact.

Answer 1

Three reasons: evidence, evidence, and evidence.

Please note that the same people who understand science well enought to know that it deals in *evidence* not "PROOF", also know that the distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a difference in *focus*, not a different phenomenon in nature.  It like the difference between "microbiology" and "macrobiology" ... or between "microgrowth" or "macrogrowth".    To insist that microevolution is a "fact" but that it cannot lead to macroevolution, is equivalent to saying that microgrowth of a tree (the division of cells) is a "fact", but that this cannot lead to macrogrowth (the tree getting taller).

This is a *partial* list of evidence of both microevolution and macroevolution:

1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

5. Evidence from proteins - Proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.

6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.

8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.

9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.

... And there's more ... a LOT more. I'm stopping only because I'm getting tired of typing, and I don't know if you're actually going to read this. (I and others have compiled lists in response to this question *so* many times ... only to get absolutely no reponse or comment whatsoever from the asker.)

Answer 2

Well you do realize that there is tons of provable evidence of evolution and no evidence of creationism!

Answer 3

As you observe, it is a demonstrated fact that species evolve. What is your question?

Answer 4

I believe evolution is true because I have seen mountains of evidence for it in the natural world. I have seen nothing that disproves it, despite decades of desperate searching by the many people who would love to discredit it. I have seen very little evidence that supports any alternative theory of the origin of species.

What would you regard as "proof"? A series of observations documenting the appearance of a new distinct species? As I'm sure you are aware, this process takes at least hundreds of thousands of years, so claiming that evolution is not true because we don't have proof is just knocking down a straw man.

Why do you not believe in evolution, despite all the evidence?

Here is an example of a piece of evidence.

http://darwin.biology.utah.edu/PubsHTML/...

Answer 5

We can only go by what we've learned. This topic is QUIET extensive...so here are some key points that prove evolution true.

1) Embryology

2) Comparative Anatomy

3) Fossil Records

4) Geographical Patterns5

5) Homology

6) Comparative Biochemistry (most accurate)

Look it up, and it's up to you. Based on my studies of evolutionary evidence, I believe it!

Answer 6

most of the answerers have done a very good job expalining it to you ..even though you do not wish to belive it..But at the end of the day it is not what you believe ..what does the evidence say ? Speaking of which..umm seen Noah's Ark lately ..no ?? umm how about The Ark of the Covenant, no ?? hmm about the Holy Grail ...geeze not that either?? Oh yeeah   the book and the Sunday school courses.....well a book written by men who were totally ignorant of science and how the world works..who believed the Earth was flat, The center of the Universe, demons caused disease, elements were earth wind fire and water and a few metals ( depending on the time in history )and of course a great BELIEF in magic.  Not the kind of intellectual depth of use to anyone relevant to scirntific principles.  Such ignorance and fear of knowledge is what  caused the Dark Ages when the Church ruled every aspect of life .....nothing..nothing really creative came forth in sciences  until the Renaissance ..wonder why ??   Scientists do not belive in evolution we accept it as the best and really only theory that adequately fits thebfacts , is powerfully predictive  and uses established scientific principles....not the argument from personal incredulity which is becoming the trademark of creationists. They demand Proof but have none   nada, zero of their own..They would be better served to actually read in depth about evolution before they criticize it...At least I have read the BIble in depth..can you say the same for evolutionary theory....?

Answer 7

If you accept "microevolution", you accept evolution.  There is no mechanism to distinguish when enough "micro" becomes "macro".

There was extensive work detailing the development of features in both living and fossil creatures.  This was not just "looks like", but following patterns such as dentition and specific bone features.  The phylogenetic tree was confirmed by molecular homology of genes, including non-structural genes.