Evolution Vs. Creation

[mcbr4481]

One big question seems to linger for me, If we and other species have evolved then why can't they find any skeletons of this evolution? If we evolved from apes there should be millions of skeletons in which we weren't human yet but not ape. there should be some inbetween and we have never found any! there should be millions and millions of them, but there just isnt... So can Evolution really be true with the lack of evidence?

[Openmind]

Trust me there is plenty of evidence.

If we and other species have evolved then why can't they find any skeletons of this evolution? If we evolved from apes there should be millions of skeletons in which we weren't human yet but not ape. there should be some inbetween and we have never found any! there should be millions and millions of them, but there just isnt...

There is never going to be millions of skeletons because a good deal of them will be corroded and destroyed. It's only those that are fossilised and preserved in very suitable condition that remain to our day. Consider that these bones of our ancestors (if you want to buy into evolution for just a minute) are from more than a million years ago. That's a long time...no wonder they can't find many. I'd consider it amazing they find any at all. They do have fossils of different branches of humanity, and they have traced us back to a very early species, that was very short (about ape height) and looked conspicuously like an ape - australopithecenes (sp?).

Have a look at the the neanderthal skeletons - they have very thick torsos and promninent brow ridges just like apes do today. And yes, they have recovered full neanderthal skeletons, more than one.

Skeptics are very good at claiming that scientists fabricate the bones, paint rocks or just plain make it up. Why would anyone do that? Go and test the bones, you'll find there made of exactly what you are.

In short there is plenty of evidence for evolution, there are plenty of fossils to show the transition between human and ape. Apart from that it just makes sense. Consider the age of the earth. Consider the macroevolution you can observe in bacteria that become resistant to certain antibiotics, due to mutations???

As far as leaps of faith go, there is a lot more evidence for evolution than for God, so it really isn't that hard.

[Openmind]

I forgot about other animals

Plenty of fossils show transitions for animals we have today.

One of the best examples i can think of is the archaeopteryx. This was a dinosaur with feathers and wings. It doesn't take a huge mental leap to understand that there is obviosuly an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.

Some animals are extremely slow at evolution, becuase they have a great design. Crocodiles are virtually unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs, but you can still some some alterations. For one the size.

Just look for the information and you will find it. I hope you become enlightened soon enough

[Cathar1950]

I am not sure I believe in evolution. I mean do I believe in gravity?
Do I believe in photosynthesis? I guess but believe is a strange word.
I guess I can say I understand photosynthesis.
Maybe not as well as other and better then some. But it isn't something I believe in, it is a process. It is change.

[McCulloch]

Is there a difference between believe and believe in?

Evolution is the idea that gradual changes over vast numbers of generations coupled with a selection process will eventually yield large changes. I believe that the evidence points to this conclusion. I don't know if I believe in it.

[4gold]

One big question seems to linger for me, If we and other species have evolved then why can't they find any skeletons of this evolution? If we evolved from apes there should be millions of skeletons in which we weren't human yet but not ape. there should be some inbetween and we have never found any! there should be millions and millions of them, but there just isnt... So can Evolution really be true with the lack of evidence?

Evolution is corroborated by several kinds of evidence besides fossils. One example is DNA. As you already know, DNA can be used in a court of law to determine ancestry. Using DNA, we can determine whether a species of animal was an ancestor, shared an ancestor, or had not ancestral link.

Yes, Evolution can be true, even with the gaps of evidence.

[Cathar1950]

Is there a difference between believe and believe in?

Evolution is the idea that gradual changes over vast numbers of generations coupled with a selection process will eventually yield large changes. I believe that the evidence points to this conclusion. I don't know if I believe in it.

Then maybe I am not crazy this one time. I was having that problem answering the question.
It is not like unicorns.

[bernee51]

One big question seems to linger for me, If we and other species have evolved then why can't they find any skeletons of this evolution? If we evolved from apes there should be millions of skeletons in which we weren't human yet but not ape. there should be some inbetween and we have never found any! there should be millions and millions of them, but there just isnt... So can Evolution really be true with the lack of evidence?

And one big question lingers for me re. an alternative to evolution...which of these do I believe.

[Confused]

One big question seems to linger for me, If we and other species have evolved then why can't they find any skeletons of this evolution? If we evolved from apes there should be millions of skeletons in which we weren't human yet but not ape. there should be some inbetween and we have never found any! there should be millions and millions of them, but there just isnt... So can Evolution really be true with the lack of evidence?

Point blank, evolution is fact. Now the method of evolution seems to be the area creationists like to attack the most. Gradual evolution vs punctuated evolution. Gould and Eldredge used punctuated equilibrium (instantaneous origination followed by stasis or equilibrium which can be punctuated by brief periods of rapid change. This was a non-darwinian fossil record. But it still doesn't negate evolution.

Recall, fossils aren't as robust as everyone might think. They must survive a host of environmental factors to remain. Hence, gaps in some lines aren't unexpected. But DNA can still be a very valid method of tracking lineage. Fossilized records aren't the only thing that proves evolution. Convergence of evidence plays heavy as well. The evidence lies in paleontology, archaeology, biology, genetics, history, etc... When so many fields all come to the same conclusion, it isn't possible to ignore the facts staring at you right in the face. So the question in your mind shouldn't be did evolution happen, (it is a fact that it did) but rather, how did it occur: gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium , and what was it in response to: natural selection, random mutations, adaptation, fine tuning etc....

Either way, if you wish to deny the fact that evolution happened, you deny it out of ignorance, not education. Debating the means of it is a much better question.

[acamp1]

Evolution is (correction: appears to be) fact. It simply means things change over time to fit their environment. Man is unique in that he can change his environment to make it fit him (although, people do sometimes point to the beaver as the exception that proves this rule).

What gets people tripped up is this notion of "higher" vs. "lower." Who are we to judge whether our current state is higher or lower than any other? We are what we are, and what we are is different from what we were.