What is your best evidence for Evolution?

[JohnR7]

What is the very best evidence you can come up with for the theory of evolution? By evolution I mean Darwin's theory of natural selection.

 

[trunks2k]

What is the very best evidence you can come up with for the theory of evolution? By evolution I mean Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Way to mix terms.

 

[coyoteBR]

What is the very best evidence you can come up with for the theory of evolution? By evolution I mean Darwin's theory of natural selection.

On a large scale, every single thing I see thru my window. This wonderful world, created in millions of years, by God, the way it works so perfectly to sustain life.

In a smaller scale... virus. Every other month you can see news about those things evolving, creating resistence to medicines developing new characteristics. From comon cold to ebola to avian flu.

 

[JohnR7]

In a smaller scale... virus.

So you think that a virus having extream resistance to medication is the best evidence for natural selection or the theory of evolution?

 

[coyoteBR]

No, it's the one that is in top of my head, and can easily be verified today, without the shadow of a doubt.

There are tons of other evidences, from fossils to specialization of salmons, from different ecosystems to the balance between pradator and pray, from ancient registers to genetic research, etc.

Virus was just the first thing I could remember.It is not the most important, nor the only one.

 

[JohnR7]

No, it's the one that is in top of my head...There are tons of other evidences

Yeah, there could be tons of evidence, I was just wondering out of all that evidence, what you feel the best evidence is?

 

[Aeothen]

ERVs rank up there for me. That's some pretty compelling evidence, and also just what was predicted to be found by evolutionary theory.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

What is the very best evidence you can come up with for the theory of evolution? By evolution I mean Darwin's theory of natural selection.

The OP in this thread is my answer to your question.

 

[outlaw]

So you think that a virus having extream resistance to medication is the best evidence for natural selection or the theory of evolution?

Way to ignore the majority of coyote’s response.

 

[outlaw]

The first problem is that there is so much evidence for evolution picking one thing is pretty much impossible.

Why does there need to be a best or even a top ten?





Just SOME of my opinion of the best evidences:



The Fossil Record:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/frwhole/FR2.html





Transitional forms

http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Archy.html





The relationship between humans and the great apes:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/primegendist.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/





Genetics:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/9995

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoGenetics.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020304081153.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020417070035.htm





Specialization:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html



Human evolution:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/2509





Observation of natural selection:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/16/9157

 

[JohnR7]

The OP in this thread is my answer to your question.

I would tend to agree that EVR's could very well be at the top of the list right now of the most convincing evidence. If it were to turn out to be true. But second on your list is the whole myth about human tails which if I would include it on the list at all, I would make it the very last evidence and not second on the list. This is yet another example for me of evolutionists shooting themselves in the foot by trying to promote something that is rediculous and already falsified. So how can we accept evidence that has not yet been falsified, when your trying to promote it right along with evidence that has already clearly been falsified?

 

[Valkhorn]

theory of natural selection

If you think about it, natural selection is just common sense. The only way natural selection could not happen is if every animal was a clone of each other - and that is not the case. Genetic variation occurs within even the smallest of organisms, and changing environments will naturally select which genetic variations pass on.

I'm not sure how this could be a difficult subject to grasp for anyone.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would tend to agree that EVR's could very well be at the top of the list right now of the most convincing evidence. If it were to turn out to be true.

If what were to "turn out true"? These sequences really do exist. Retroviruses really do exist.

But second on your list is the whole myth about human tails which if I would include it on the list at all, I would make it the very last evidence and not second on the list. This is yet another example for me of evolutionists shooting themselves in the foot by trying to promote something that is rediculous and already falsified.

What has been falsified? There "false tails" which are fleshy outgrowths that superficially resemble tails. There are also "true tails" which include extra vertebrae and muscles to move the tail. These are real, and found in some humans. This is not surprising since all humans start out with a tail early in embryonic development. This tail is usually absorbed back into the body, leaving the coccyx as the only reminant of the embryonic tail.

So how can we accept evidence that has not yet been falsified, when your trying to promote it right along with evidence that has already clearly been falsified?

It hasn't been falsified, just hand waved away by creationists.

 

[JohnR7]

If you think about it, natural selection is just common sense.

No one has any problem with natural selection. What they have a problem with is the theory of natural selection. Actually, Darwin's theory of natural selection was falsified by evolutionists themselves. There seems to be a unwritten rule that you can not falsify someone's theory, unless you have a better theory to replace it with. Then everyone kind of votes on it to see if they are going to go along with the new or the old theory. But if they accept the new theory, they will use the name that they use to call the old theory by. In this case, natural selection. Theorys come and go, but they keep using the same names for them.

 

[JohnR7]

It hasn't been falsified, just hand waved away by creationists.

Yea, ok, believe what you want. But even the photo they used for evidence of human tails contains no bones, making it a falsifation all in and of itself.

 

[MartinM]

Yea, ok, believe what you want. But even the photo they used for evidence of human tails contains no bones, making it a falsifation all in and of itself.

Bones:

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Bones:

Bones:

http://www.kilroywashere.com/sarah/greatm~1.jpg

 

[JohnR7]

Bones:

There are no bones in this tail. This is the sort of deception we have come to expect from evolutionists.
That could be one of the reasons so many people have a problem accepting their theorys.
A doctor today would simply say it is of unknown origion, they would suggest it be cut off, thrown away and that would be the end of it.
If you think you have unexplained growths when your young, just want until you get old to see what sort of unexplained growths start to show up on your body.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are no bones in this tail. This is the sort of deception we have come to expect from evolutionists.

There are bones in the x-ray, which you continue to ignore. True human tails do exist, and you continue to ignore this inconvenient fact.

That could be one of the reasons so many people have a problem accepting their theorys.

It would seem that the problem is the selective way in which creationists accept evidence. Tail without bones? We'll take that. Tail with bones? Hey, how about that tail without bones? I am suspecting that you will continue to ignore the x-ray for the next 5 pages.

A doctor today would simply say it is of unknown origion, they would suggest it be cut off, thrown away and that would be the end of it.

No, the doctor would know exactly where it came from. It is a left over from embryonic development.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yea, ok, believe what you want. But even the photo they used for evidence of human tails contains no bones, making it a falsifation all in and of itself.

Look at the x-ray John. What are those things labelled C1, C2, etc.? Could they be bones? Or are they dog biscuits? What are they John?