Is there evidence for macroevolution?

Douglas Theobald has five examples from the fossil record: transitionals between birds and reptiles, transitionals between reptiles and mammals, transitionals between apes and humans [sic], transitionals between whales and terrestrial mammals, and transitionals between seacows and terrestrial mammals. What makes these (and other) examples so compelling is that these fossils have exactly the characteristics that evolution predicts should be found: the fossils show the necessary characteristics in between the two groups they link, and they are found at about the right ages. Dr. Theobald's entire essay has much more evidence in favor of evolution than simply the fossil record; much of the fossil record hadn't yet been discovered in Darwin's time; he relied on other evidence in favor of evolution. Even today, the evidence in so many fields of science is overwhelming in favor of evolution that simply restricting yourself to the fossil record is rather limiting. And Theobald's essay also included actual references to the scientific literature - I think this is just what you need.Another good site is the cladograms at the Palaeos site. Look at all the species listed - each one is an actual fossil, and they all can be placed, in most cases, precisely in the correct places in the phylogenic tree because, again, they all exhibit the right characteristics to show their relation with the various other species in the tree.My favorite example is Morganocodon, which was discovered with all the characteristics a mammal ancestor should have.My other favorite example (in Theobald's essay and in Kathleen Hunt's list, is the transition between reptiles and mammals, including evidence, in the fossil record, of the reptilian jaw transforming into the mammalian ear.You also said you found lots of evidence in favor of creationism. I have yet to see any good evidence - could you share yours with us?

quote:

---

I have plenty of evidence for Creation, but I would still like it if some other creationists could give me some more evidence too.

---

You might want to focus on the evidence that falsifies special creation as well. Falsifying evidence is just as important within science as supporting evidence, maybe even more important. In fact, a theory may have loads of supporting evidence, but a few pieces of falsifying evidence throws out all of the supporting evidence. From my perspective, science discounts creationism not because of the supporting evidence, but because of the falsifying evidence.

Thank You for the website! That is exactly what I needed. Unfortunately, some of those links are out of date. They still have the "archaeopteryx" link between reptile and bird that is now beleived that, since everything points to the suggestion that archaeopteryx is a bird, that is only what it is. You also asked for the proof I have gathered for Creation. Well, we can't see God. We can't touch, taste or smell God, but I can feel God. But that is not what you asked for. You wanted my evidences for Creation. Well, I am only a beginner in this debate, but I will try my best. Amino acid sequences are far too complex for them to happen by chance. If you were to fill the entire state of Texas four feet deep with half dollars, and put an X on the back of one, you would have a better chance at pulling out the coin with the X, than you would at having even the simplest amino acid sequence come about by chance. You can do the math or you can just ask Dr. Jay L. Wile, the author of my biology text book.
Furthermore, the diversity in life is far too complicated to come about by chance. I also have lots of evidence for the flood in Genesis, but I will only list a few because I have a feeling that this message is getting lengthy. First of all, how do you suppose that clams fossils were found way up in the mountains? Over 95 percent of the fossils in the fossil record are clams. That's kinda hard to ignore. You don't see clams evolving in any of these fossils.
There are two ways rock layers can be laid down. One is over long periods of time, and the other way is by natural disasters, (such as Mt. St, Helens, for example). The Mt. St. Helens eruption formed rock layers, canyons, and fossils in less than 24 hours. Just think how much a world wide flood would effect the world! That would have accounted for nearly ALL the rock layers and fossils found today! Almost all culures throughout the world have a world wide flood story. China, for example, has a world wide flood story from the same time in history as the time of Noah. How would almost all cutures have stories of a world wide flood, when they are isolated from each other? I know I have to make this quick, so I will end simply by giving you some resources. I STRONGLY suggest DrDino.com, icr.org and I would suggest Dr. Ken Ham's book, "Answers in Genesis." Thanks!

That was an good point about the evidence against things. Could you give me, (in as few words as possible), evidence against creation science? They only things I have heard against creation are all trying to disprove the validity of the Bible. So if you have good evidence against it, go ahead and tell me in a few words.

Well, Mt St Helens did NOT create any fossils. Period. I don't know who told you that but they were either lying or incredibly uninformed.But you also have an entirely wrong idea of how chance works. You need to do some work on that before you use it or they will simply laugh your paper out.Clam fossils got into the strata at the mountain tops when the mount tops were still sea bottom. It is the land that rose and that can even be observed. It is happening today in many parts of the world.All areas have floods, so the story part is easy. But there is absolutely NO evidence of a worldwide flood, particularly within the last 100,000 years or so.You really need a new biology textbook.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In two words:
actual science.In a few more:
geology, astronomy, biology, genetics, palaeontology,....

---

El sueo de la razn produce monstruos. - Francisco Goya

Again, you misunderstand what is being asked. The question is, what would disprove creation?For some theory to be accepted, one of the conditions is that you can say, "If this is shown to be true, or to happen, then the theory is wrong."What is needed is a statement that says, "If XYZ can be shown to be true, then Creation is wrong".Until any Creation ideas include such falsification premises, it cannot be taken seriously.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I wasn't saying Mt. St. Helens created fossils. I was saying that as a result of Mt. St. Helens, fossils were formed. Creatures were killed and there remains were preserved in the mud. Later on, there skeletons produced fossils. One thing I have to point out, I am only 15 years old! I am a Freshman in High school. I am looking for information for a paper I am writing. I am not out to argue. Whatever you believe is up to you, because I know I can't convince you otherwise. You have to choose for yourself.

Archaeopteryx is not "just a bird". It is (probably) not an ancestor of modern birds - it is more likely an offshoot of the line leading from dinosaurs to birds. That it happens to be placed on the "bird" side of the line does not mean that it is not a transitional any more than if it were on the dinosaur side of the line - any dinosaur-bird intermediate will be placed on one or the other side of that line. As birds go it is very like a dinosaur - and without the feather impressions it might even now be classified as a dinosaur (perhaps especially now we are getting fossil evidence that feathers evolved on dinosaurs).

I want to know REAL proofs for and against so I can weigh them out. Saying that the study of this and the study of that disproves something, that isn't enough. The bottom line of what I was trying to ask is what is your best proof for macro evolution. I am not trying to argue. I am simply looking for the Truth. If you are upset by a 15 year old, then you need to figure out what your life is really about and where it came from. I do not know how to counter every little idea in the world for evolution, as I am a beginner, but you can't go around telling me that creation science is religion, when Christianity itself is not a religion. I am begging you to come to know the truth because I care for you. I will pray for you.

Sorry if I sounded rude. I was not yelling or anything in my heart. I respect your beliefs and will not try to argue you out of them. But I have one more question, (sorry they keep popping in my mind), If what you are saying is true and there is no God, then where did all the matter in the universe come from? Then also, do you acknowledge that macro evolution, that is REAL macro evolution, has not been observed? Because you obviously cannot see it happening today. I also admit that you cannot observe God creating the world now, either.This message has been edited by Proboscis, 05-05-2004 06:24 PM

Hang loose, you're doing fine.But there were NO fossils produced by the recent Mt, St Helen's explosion and erruption. Whoever told you that is simply wrong. That is not a matter of belief, but of fact.You're doing great and don't give up. You are right at the edge of really beginning to learn just how wonderful a world GOD created.I'm a devout Christian, and also an evolutionist. The two are not incompatible and no one will challenge beliefs, but Science does not deal in beliefs.That is one of the first things you need to learn before you go any farther.Science does not depend on beliefs.It does not matter in science how much you believe something.Instead, you have to ask, does the theory explain the observations? If the theory cannot explain what is observed, then it has to be abandoned.That includes the Theory of Evolution.One other thing about Science, is that it can be used to make predictions that can later be tested. The Theory of Evolution has done just that.For example, long before genetics or DNA, Evolution predicted that certain animals were related, for example, the Primates. Nowm DNA and Genetics are showing that was correct. The Chimps, and Neaderthal are very closely related to modern man. We are all related.So hang in there. The folk here will help you. Follow up with what they suggest. Remember, no one is telling you what they BELIEVE when it comes to Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nope. It's a transitional form with some reptilian features and some avian features. As much as creationists wish it were not so, it's a transitional. From All About Archaeopteryx:

quote:

---

Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds.

---

Yup, everybody agrees with that. Nobody claims that amino acid sequences happened by chance. Not evidence for creation. Geez, when are creationists going to get out of the 15th century? Leonardi da Vinci figured out back then that fossil shells on mountaintops are not the result of a flood (see Leonardo da Vinci: genius and precursor). He didn't know how they got there ... but now we do. The mountaintops were once sea bottoms and, over millions of years, they turned to stone and were uplifted by plate tectonics. Male bovine excrement. The vast majority of the fossil record is marine invertebrates, but almost all of that is foraminifera. Yes you do. Clams and their RelativesFalse. No rock was formed, no fossils were formed, and the small "canyons" were cut into soft ash and looked quite different from canyons cut into hard rock. Not almost all .. and very few of the flood stories are anything like tha Biblical one. People tend to live near water, people who live near water tend to get floods, and people who get floods tend to tell stories about them. No global flood. Both are proven liars, and very bad sources. See http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp10001f77&sp-q=%22k... and Analyzing Kent Hovind.

Hi Proboscis, welcome to EvC.You are asking several BIG questions that won't be answered in a post or two or three. We hope you stick around and debate after your paper is done. Your age is not a deterant to participation here. You all ready express yourself better than many of the adults that we get popping in here. Several of our long standing members here are still in high school.If you are replying to Jar concerning the existance of god, you might be surprised to find that he ISN'T an atheist.Once again, welcome and hope to see you stick around.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

I am not trying to shake what you believe or anything, but you can't take Genesis literally if you believe in macroevolution can you? It says that God created everything in six days. Not that God created evolution. I would like to suggest looking for books written by Ken Ham. He is a great scientist and author. You can decide for yourself whether or not to read those books, but I would suggest them strongly.