Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

I don't think its a disaster. If humans evolved from reptiles through a long line of random mutations, what is the problem? Evolutionists also claim that we came from single celled organisms.I think it is a good thing that in the process of answering one question the reader logically comes up with another. There is nothing about evolution that can be answered by one simple reply - just a series of questions and answers.The only reason such a question would be a disaster is if science did not have an answer to the next question. Thankfully such answers exist.

I was reading in National Geographic (May 1997) about a fossil called "Turkana Boy". One part of the article states The brain, as an adult, would be about the size of a one year old human, but still twice the size of a chimps. This fossil was found in near complete state - and it is not human. More information and a photograph can be found on Wikipedia hereCreationists always seem to claim that there is no evidence; that scientists make their claims based on a bone fragment or some such. This fossil was found in 1984! The article where I read about this is ten years out of date, but once again shows me that there is evidence. Though finding a complete skeleton is rare such things have happened and scientists are not simply basing the theories on a bone fragment.I am not sure if I would use this fossil as "The most convincing evidence" - but its just another example in a long list that confirms evolution for me.

Iceage already answered your question. The paragraph directly above the quote you supplied stated: I would also say that a 'comma' downplays the complexity of a retrovirus. I much prefer the analogy of the error, because a retrovirus could also be said to be an error of sorts. If I am understanding you correctly, I would agree. This is not proof of a direct cross-species relationship. It does however provide support of the preexisting theory. Particularly that we share more Endogenous Retrovirus DNA with old world primates than we do with new world primates. I disagree, I feel that the more chances that something has to happen the better the likelihood that it will. Thats my own personal logic however, and I would be interested to see the math that shows otherwise.Edited by Vacate, : Spelling

If the location of the Retrovirus has no impact, why then did you decide to make differing locations for the analogy? Being in the same location is important, its impact is enough to say that it supports the theory of being more closely related to old world primates than even new world primates. Once again, if the complexity is "irrelevent", why did you propose the change in your analogy? How so? It is concluded that we are more closely related to old world primates than new - and this observation regarding the retrovirus supports such a conclusion. Its really not much of a leap. Exoplanet Orbit Database | Exoplanet Data ExplorerThis website claims only 212 planets have been discovered. Perhaps the number is not completely accurate, but its safe to say that its not off by a few billion. From the reading I have done on the subject almost all of the planets discovered are very large gaseous planets.
This is not indicative of what all planets must be, its simply the limit of the technology of the time. Smaller, more Earthlike planets are now being discovered, as reported in the media just last year. (UsaToday) Agreed Also agreed I fail to understand your logic Right now, to the best of our knowledge, life is limited to Earth. What does it mean? Nothing. Our knowledge is limited by our technology . I have hopes someday we will find life outside our solar system, but the odds of picking the right spot to look is slim.

Irrelevant. When you feel that evolution was introduced is not the topic of discussion. Are you aware that humans are not the only species that has unique traits? - and no this is not irrelevant. You have concluded that humans are a unique species/kind/thing/type/example/form simply because they have a feature that other species/kinds/things/types/examples/forms do not. How exactly does "Darwin" fail in this regard? How does your definition of bird-kind in any way help me to differentiate a Robin from an Ostrich or a Hummingbird?So far your method of organizing life forms is without any substantiation. Its meaningless to state that humans are different because of speech, that much is obvious. What is not obvious what criteria you use to determine fish-kind, insect-kind, bacteria-kind, mamal-kind-excluding human-kind.Show me that you can pass the test of ticking the difference. All I have read so far is about "vindicated Genesis", and not one solitary reason for you to declare all evidence to the contrary "irrelevant". I am still waiting for you to explain why Darwin should use something that does not make sense. Unless of course you actually believe that evolutionary scientists do not know how various life forms have sex.

I am in the process of reading The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, and tonight ran into something I found interesting that I believe does fit with the topic. I found this quite interesting. He also discussed the salamanders of California. If I have some time I will try to provide a summary of what he has to say about the Ensatina.

The originator does not show "evidence of evolution". Its original depictions have done little to define the differences seen in nature. You lost me on the Ostrich. Besides that - the Robin and the Hummingbird both have "air-borne attributes", and so I am still left wanting. What makes the two different enough that we should give them different names? Or are you suggesting all animals with "air-borne attributes" (and several without), from now on simply be called Bird? Interesting that you would post such a thing in a thread meant to supply evidence, and then shortly after post this: Now we are back to the everything thats not a rock - kind. If this is your "legitimate, proven premise" I am really going to have a hard time taking you seriously.

Yes No, neither Richard Dawkins nor I attempted to show speciation outside the bird family. No they do not. Please provide an example of how humans make a complete ring such as the gulls.

Humans do have a category of their own! Homo Sapien, does this satisfy you? Take note of the fact that in latin this means wise man, I am sure this will bring you satisfaction in that science even elevates humans (even if just in name). Not so. You are minimilizing our differences. Not only are we different because of speech, but also our DNA, Bones, Brain, organs, and even trivial things such as our appearance - all these set us apart from all other animals! I can tell you apart from a whale even when you don't speak.ABE - In message 171 you attributed the quote to me when it was Dr.Adequate that should have been credited. Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This is just absurd. Are you going to wait for the drop of blood to speak before calling it a murder scene? Yes you will and you already have.In Message 101: And again here in Message 105Again in Message 110Another here in Message 145No suprise in Message 152same post, but adding yet another issue: A few more in that post, but I hardly see the need for quote boxes. Message 154Message 169Message 171You have done nothing but take up this issue here, and with this final post you still make the claim that the only important difference is speech! Congratulations on making such a unique observation, but could you please make a new thread that outlines how in the world this could be of any use to science?If you are going to insist that speach is the only important feature I feel that I am justified in some clarity before you have the right to keep declaring "victory" over biologists. All you have right now is a fallback on "kinds" that shifts so broadly, and so often that any attempt at a solid understanding is impossible.Your method of organizing life is meaningless. You keep claiming science is wrong because it is not organizing correctly - then be clear on your proposal for a correct method. I would be glad to question you on various life forms and how you decide what "kind" they are.