What is the evidence for evolution?
Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence
that said...if you were really interested in learning instead of parroting retarded creationist talking points, you could've just googled this shyt yourself.
i mean, what the fukk. if guys like you were as motivated to actually gain some knowledge about evolution as you are to try to shyt on it we wouldn't even be having this argument.
well i read into the first link and this is what i seen almost immediately
Homologies
Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.
People (and apes) have chests that are broader than they are deep, with the shoulder blades flat in back. This is because we, like apes, are descended from an ancestor who was able to suspend itself using the upper limbs. On the other hand, monkeys and other quadrupeds have a different form of locomotion. Quadrupeds have narrow, deep chests with shoulder blades on the sides.
Modification of the tetrapod skeleton
Whales and hummingbirds have tetrapod skeletons inherited from a common ancestor. Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years. On the surface, these animals look very different, but the relationship between them is easy to demonstrate. Except for those bones that have been lost over time, nearly every bone in each corresponds to an equivalent bone in the other.
them bones just up and swam/flew away
Homologies: cellular/molecular evidence
All living things are fundamentally alike. At the cellular and molecular level living things are remarkably similar to each other. These fundamental similarities are most easily explained by evolutionary theory: life shares a common ancestor.
i agree that all living things are fundamentally alike but the rest keeps being described as theory and i also agree with that
Chronology
Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata. As shown in the diagram, fossils found in lower strata were typically deposited first and are deemed to be older (this principle is known as superposition). Sometimes this method doesn't work, either because the layers weren't deposited horizontally to begin with, or because they have been overturned
interesting variable
Numerical dating relies on the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram, you can determine "older than X, but younger than Y" dates for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content. Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.
Artificial selection
Artificial selection provides a model that helps us understand natural selection.
People have been artificially selecting domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. These activities have amounted to large, long-term, practical experiments that clearly demonstrate that species can change dramatically through selective breeding.
Broccoli and brussels sprouts bear little superficial resemblance to their wild mustard relatives
who says im not willing to learn?
still throwing around names also what is your problem? such an unhappy scrappy
from only a few quotes there seems to be loopholes that arent really capable of being explained to actually say evolution as in changing from one animal to another completely not just an adaptation in a species or something as simple as different shades of hide/fur better vision etc is a fact for certain that has been seen and proven
It's based on fact.
Regardless, we've proven that it happens. In fact, we've created entirely new species through animal husbandry and plant cross-pollination.
lol @ this though
so you can prove evolution through artificial insemination? here is a good example of these techniques
now in this video dr patrice has compared getting the best of the best genetically to actually getting the ones with the best genetics physically actually and if that truly is true how can that be proved through evolution? when obviously the most dominating species we have on earth is one of the weakest in physical strength?
also if this is true why are these animals that have evolved not all taking this route as in pure muscle gain? this is the definition of evolution in biology
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations
and here natural selection and the differences of it from artificial selection
Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms. As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favour specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.
and here is a quote of darwin
The term was introduced by Darwin in his influential 1859 book On the Origin of Species,[1] in which natural selection was described as analogous to artificial selection, a process by which animals and plants with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction.
not only is artificial breeding a bad way to explain evolution they are not exactly the same only similar/genetically genes are passed but the emergance of a new species entirely is not shown or documented truthfully
adaptation
An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. An adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals. Organisms face a succession of environmental challenges as they grow and develop and are equipped with an adaptive plasticity as the phenotype of traits develop in response to the imposed conditions. The developmental norm of reaction for any given trait is essential to the correction of adaptation as it affords a kind of biological insurance or resilience to varying environments.
From the above definitions, it is clear that there is a relationship between adaptedness and fitness (a key population genetics concept).
now if these cows are truly evolving (changing from one species to another to survive their enviroment) why doesnt it seem like it?
from what the video is showing they are adapting by definition through muscle gain but they arent evolving to survive their enviroment which is also part of it
this is a good spot to draw a line of what we actually know for fact about artificial and natural selection because yes while we are proving through artificial insemination that their fitness can be improved they arent changing into different animals
your making this so much about mowgli instead of actually backing any of this up
