What i can't understand about evolution....

Science is not about proof. Science involves accuracy, which is entirely different. Technically, I cannot prove that you exist.Science is about modeling reality in a theoretical framework to the highest degree of accuracy possible using all available evidence. The Theory of Evolution, and in fact the hypothesis that both elephants and lemurs shared a common ancestor, has shown to have a very high degree of accuracy based on all of the available evidence. The Theory of Evolution has even accurately predicted the existence of evidence that we were previously unaware of.Stop trying to think of scientific theories as trying to prove something. They're not. When you think you've proven something, you stop lookign for ways to increase the accuracy of your model, and you automatically assume that you're correct regardless of additional information. Scientific theories are best-fit models for the evidence we have gathered so far. They are always subject to change, and they constantly undergo rigorous testing.In the case of evolution, the evidence is so overwhelming that only ignorance (willful or otherwise) prevents its acceptance. All of the evidence fits perfectly with the modern concept of evolution as change in species over generations through random mutation guided by natural selection. We have directly observed new traits to form, and have even directly observed new species arising from pre-existing ones, exactly as evolution predicts. Genetic and morphological evidence from literally every species we have ever found, living or extinct, has fit perfectly with the prediction that new species do not suddenly appear by magic, but rather that they arise slowly, over many generations, from pre-existing species.Does this mean that evolution is proven? No. It means that it is a highly accurate representation of what happens (and has happened) in nature. The overwhelming weight of evidence means that the theory of Evolution is unlikely to be falsified, and that it's a very useful model.Think of it this way: Newton's Theory of Gravity is very accurate...if you only know as much about the Unvierse as Newton did. Einstein's version of gravity is far more accurate. I can say that it is proven that gravity exists becasue we directly observe it every day, but the Theory of Gravity is still just the most accurate representation of the factual phenomenon we've observed in nature. It's subject to change when additional information comes along.That species change over generations (including the rise of new species) is proven becasue it has been directly observed. But the Theory of Evolution, which describes the mechanism by which that change occurs, is a best-fit solution given the evidence we have available. That mechanism peredicts many things about all life, including extinct species, and when we look at the evidence, those predictions are verified.The very fact that you're stumbling to define "kinds" in a detailed fashion is because of evolution. Because species arise gradually from pre-existing species, it's difficult to draw the sort of firm lines between "kinds." It's one of the many, many reasons that Creationism can't hold any water in a scientific discussion. This is a common sentiment amongst Creationists, and it's flat-out wrong. Faith is defined as a belief held without supporting evidence, or even despite contrary evidence. The belief that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that Santa Claus exists, or that the moon is made of swiss cheese would all be various examples of faith.The Theory of Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence. There is no faith involved whatsoever. No part of the theory of Evolution is based on belief without evidence, or inspite of contrary evidence. To conflate a scientific theory with faith is simply incorrect to the point of absurdity.Creationists frequently make statements like yours in a childish "you do it too, you're just as bad!" sort of argument. You don't like the fact that your beliefs have the same supporting evidence as belief in Santa Claus, and that the conflicting Theory of Evolution carries the weight of real evidence. But making false statements conflating scientific models with faith only shows that you don't understand science at all.

John, you're 100% flat-out completely wrong.Life is currently increasing in diversity. New species form all the time, so frequently that we've been able to directly observe it happening in the lab several times despite the fact that evolution occurs over many generations of a population.You're quite obviously referencing the "fall" of Genesis, and the Creationist position that mutations and such are all the result of the gradual atrophy of life's perfection since that time. There is no evidence for that position, and in fact it relies entirely on horrendously misunderstanding the very concepts of evolution, mutation, and genetics.The imperfect copying of genetic information that defines mutation is not evidence of any sort of "corruption" as you are claiming. Rather, copy errors are the very driving force behind increasing diversity. Change in populations over generations is the very definition of evolution, not your made-up "devolution" antonym.

All of science is "theories." The word "theory" as it pertains to science does not mean "an idea I had one day." A scientific theory is an explanatory framework supported by available evidence that has gone through rigorous testing and been generally accepted in the scientific community due to its demonstrated high degree of accuracy. What evidence would you accept for evolution? What do you believe the Theory of Evolution states? If you have a misconception as to what the theory actually is, it would be no wonder that you would be skeptical. I have yet to see a Creationist source that accurately represents the Theory of Evolution. Even many public schools don't get it right. This question is not related to the actual Theory of Evolution. Human beings did not "spring" fully formed from any other organism. Evolution is a slow, generational process that occurs over populations, not to individuals. There were no "monkeys" who gave birth to an "Adam" and an "Eve" for instance. An entire population of interbreeding individuals gradually evolved over multiple generations until eventually the result could be called homo sapiens. Over this long period many segments of the same population branched off and evolved in different ways. Again, this doesn't have anything to do with evolution. According to the Theory of Evolution, literally every fossil is transitional between its evolutionary ancestors and its descendants. typically, Creationists expect to find odd Chimaera-monstrosities along the lines of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - a creature that is for example "half-x and half-y." That's not the way it works. As a population evolves over generations, features will become more or less pronounced, and new features will occasionally arise - we don't expect to find the sort of transitionals that Creationists do in their ignorance of evolution. A look at the evolutionary history of humanity would show examples of fossils that are progressively less-human and more-apelike as you go further back in time.But then, fossil evidence isn't even the best evidence for evolution. Observation of the process as it happens is. We have directly observed evolution working - college biology students watch new features evolve in the laboratory all the time. We have even observed new species' evolving.We also have genetic evidence that leaves very clear lines of descent. In the same way that the police can use genetic testing to determine if a suspect and victim were related and how closely, we can tell the same about different species.Unfortunately because single-celled organisms do not fossilize, we won't likely ever know specifically what the single-celled common ancestor of all Earth-bound life was like. It simply couldn't have left sufficient evidence of itself behind. What we can tell is that the genetic structure of all life on Earth is the same (with the possible exception of viruses who use exclusively RNA rather than DNA, but RNA and DNA themselves are very closely related).So I ask again - what does the Theory of Evolution say, in your own words? What evidence would you expect us to find if it were an accurate model? If you have misconceptions, we can help fix them. If you are unaware of specific evidence, we can help with that as well. But the sort of questions you asked are not reasonable given the realities of biology and the amount of time involved in the evolutionary process.

Please re-read my post. I addressed each of your points and asked you questions of my own. I'm not nearly as well-versed in evolution as many here. We have actual scientists and professors on this board. As I said in my previous post:

quote:

---

Unfortunately because single-celled organisms do not fossilize, we won't likely ever know specifically what the single-celled common ancestor of all Earth-bound life was like. It simply couldn't have left sufficient evidence of itself behind. What we can tell is that the genetic structure of all life on Earth is the same (with the possible exception of viruses who use exclusively RNA rather than DNA, but RNA and DNA themselves are very closely related).

---

Concluding that all life on Earth has a common ancestor does not require knowing the specific identity of that ancestor. Your question is both impossible to answer with the degree of specificity you're asking for and is irrelevant. I don't need to know the name and characteristics of my great grandfather to know that my cousins and I are related and all descend from him.

But we don't expect to be able to. This isn't required for the Theory of Evolution to be an accurate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. As I said, this particular question is irrelevant to whether the Theory of Evolution is an accurate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Being skeptical is always a good thing - but you still need to ask meaningful questions. Scientists don't ever expect to have all the answers - that's why I use words like "accuracy." We try to create the most accurate explanation possible given the evidence at hand, and we alter the explanations when new evidence comes to light. This means that, despite not having detailed information about the original lifeform on Earth, we can still make the reasonable conclusion that there was such a single ancestor because all of the evidence we do have supports that explanation.We've gone over a great deal of evidence for evolution in this thread, and I've even tried to engage you in a discussion to correct any misconceptions you have and to show you what the evidence actually is.Unfortunately, you've chosen to ignore my posts. I had thought that you would do me the courtesy of responding to me on a point-by-point basis as I do with you, but it would seem you aren't interested in an honest debate - you'd rather claim that, as a self-admitted "beginner," you can somehow declare victory and dismiss evolution because of a single question that science cannot answer sufficiently for you when we don't expect to ever have that answer, and it's not necessary for evolution to be an accurate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.If you'd like to engage in serious, honest debate, please respond to my entire posts, at the very least to show that you've read them. If you're serious about inviting us to educate you, then participate in an active discussion. Right now, you're a broken record - endlessly repeating a single point that has already been addressed and pretending it hasn't. Until you stop using such childish tactics, you frankly aren't worth responding to.

Wrong.Evolution does not require a single common ancestor. the evidence points to one, but as I and others have said repeatedly (and you have repeatedly ignored), the theory of Evolution is supported by direct observation.We have seen, with our own eyes, populations evolving. From the same population, we can observe and track changes over multiple generations until the descendants are significantly different from their ancestors. The "superbugs" you hear about on the news with resistance to antibiotics are direct examples of evolution in action - the resistance is a mutation, and the population of bacteria changes in response to a hostile environment.You don't understand why your question is irrelevant because you don't understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says.The Theory of Evolution states that new species arise from pre-existing species, that random mutation guided by natural selection results in changing (and even new) features that eventually differentiate a population from its ancestor population sufficiently to call the two populations different species. No feature is truly unique, but is a slightly modified version of the same feature in a pre-existing species.We've observed this process directly both in the lab and in the wild.Evolution predicts that as we look into the fossil record, those fossils we do find should conform to the model of gradual change rather than sudden magical Creation. We don't expect to find examples of every species that ever lived (fossilization is too rare a process for that to ever happen, and with all the organisms that have ever lived we'd be absolutely buried in bones), but we expect that when we do find a new species it should conform to the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. And so far, every single fossil ever discovered as well as every single living species ever discovered have in fact conformed to what we expect if the Theory of Evolution is accurate. The inference that all life hails from a single common ancestor is derived from (among other things) the fact that all features seem to be modified versions of pre-existing features, and organisms seem "simpler" as we go farther back in time. It's reasonable conclusion given the evidence we do have, even if we don't have enough information to identify it specifically.You're focusing on a single unknown and claiming that this falsifies the theory of Evolution. But that unknown does not dismiss all of the mountains of directly observed evidence. It doesn't dismiss vestigial features, genetics, or anything else. It's similar to police being able to tell that a murder occurred, and with what weapon, and that the killer was right-handed and had a specific blood type, but not knowing (yet) the specific identity of the killer. The unknown doesn't invalidate the conclusion that a murder occurred!An unknown does not falsify anything. It's an unknown. I don't need to know the identity of your great-great-grandfather to know that you had one. You don't need to know the identity of a common ancestor to know that two species are related if the other evidence points that way.

I'm curious as well. We know that the Universe in the past has been completely inhospitable to life. Even those who posit panspermia or other such alternatives to Earthly abiogenesis must still admit that at a certain point there was no life in the Universe, and at a later point life exists. This means that life arose through abiogenesis somewhere, life was created by a magical deity (who somehow itself existed while the Universe was impossibly inhospitable to all life, and which somehow itself does not require its own "creator"), or life arrived here from "outside the Universe," which is basically a contradiction in terms anyway. In other words, abiogenesis is the most rational position by far, to a sufficient degree that I'd call the other options utter fantasy.

Hi Peg. I know you're getting nearly assaulted by replies and that I'm adding to the pile-up, but I really hope some of these replies are helping. Honestly, I couldn't care less if you actually accept evolution as an accurate explanation for the diversity of life, but I'd really, really like to debate a Creationist who understands what the Theory of Evolution actually says and so can argue without resorting to strawman arguments.A large number of responses have been generated over your usage of the terms "more advanced" and "lower." This is because such terms are honestly meaningless for what we're discussing.You're thinking in terms of "positive" and "negative" mutations, and that the organism with the most "positive" mutations is the most "advanced."That's not the way it works. A mutation can be positive or negative, but such a judgment is almost completely dependent on the environment, which we know can change. For example, a camel's hump helps it survive in a desert, but it's not much of a positive adaptation in an area with plenty of water like a rain forest. A camel is neither "higher" nor "lower" than a donkey or a horse.The so-called "evolutionary ladder" is not a term used in science. It's a creation of the media used to try to explain the concept to non-scientists, and as usual such watered-down explanations create far more misconceptions than they dispel. There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved."As such, there are no "lower apes." We are apes, as were what you call the "ape men." We are the eventual descendants of a variety of species of other apes. Other modern apes are also the eventual descendants of a variety of species of other apes. At some point in the past, our ancestors and their ancestors join together on a gargantuan family tree - the common ancestor. It's a population of that common ancestor species that split into two (or more) groups - perhaps the population was too large and one group migrated to a new area, or perhaps there was a disaster that forced them to spread out. In any case, the separation allowed the two populations of that species to develop independently and adapt to now-different environments without sharing genetic information. As has already been discussed, this eventually lead the two populations to be different species. This happened several more times for each population, eventually resulting in the various ape species (including us) we see today.The other apes continue to exist because they are able to survive just fine in their environment. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean that parent populations die out when a new daughter species forms. But mroe than that, this also means that the other apes we see today are not the same apes that we evolved from. They are just as much the product of evolution that we are - they simply evolved differently after our common ancestors branched off. So humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees or gorillas - rather, humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas all evolved from a common ancestor that branched out into two or more separate populations.Our intelligence may be better than theirs, but that doesn't make us a "higher" species, or make the other apes "less evolved." Evolution is less "survival of the fittest" and more "survival of the fit enough with favor to the most fit and adaptable." That's just too long for a tag line.