Evidence for or against evolution

Here's the rules: I want ONE reason, the best, for why/why not evolution is true, do not argue back and forth, just show me your best evidance. Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evidence supporting macro-evolution: fossils.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

when we come out the womb we dont come out full grown we come out as babies and must grow and learn just as everything else (almost). This is evident in all of nature why not on a much grander scale. we started as cavemen and now we're damn near spacemen. Growing, learnig, EVOLVING!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-gw-

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd have to go with the changes wrought in domesticated animals by breeding programs. This is evolution on a fast scale.

 

The ability of a virus or bacteria to evolve over very small time-scales. For example, the AIDS virus or the emergence of anti-biotic resistant strains of staff infections in hospitals.

 

Here's some pretty good evidence of evolution:
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
(Observations of speciation [formation of a new biological species]).

 

Because there is no credible alternate explanation for life on Earth.

 

That's a whole different kind of evolution. Or rather, the evolution of something other than species.

 

Pure and simple... evolution is fact. EVERY piece of evidence points at it.

The actual process is still up for debate,

 

Can we debate this elseware please.

 

Lol, you brought it up.

 

No, I specifically asked you to provide one piece of evidence and NOT debate with each other.

 

best piece of evidence?
well the discovery of Lucy, the australopethicus, is pretty convincing, it is a solid proof that we have ancient ancestors, and we evolved something else long ago, Lucy is the oldest KNOWN human ancestor. with the help of forensic science and other scientific fields, we are able to determine that species, esp. primates like Austrolopethicus, shared a lot of common features with modern H. sapiens, for instance, Austrolopethicus is believed to be the first species to walk upright on two legs

Darwin's theory of natural selection was pretty much strongly supported after his trip around the world on H.M.S. Beagle, he found adaptation in different kinds of species

Darwin got even more support when Crick and Watson discovered DNA, and proved that genes can be mutated and pass down to generations, and these mutations can be induced by the environment. and this difference in the genes helped evolution and natural selection (survival of the fittest)

 

They didn't discover DNA, they wrote the paper describing its structure.

 

Yep, I agree that this is the most overwhelming evidence. Its blatant and irrefutable. Sexual reproduction + time = evolution.
Also yes domestic animals are good too.
Even if that was all you knew, you'd think "hmmm that means a long time ago animals would have been different" and then what do you know we have fossils. It all works out perfectly and makes perfect sense. It couldn't be wrong at this stage.
Look at it like a jigsaw puzzle of a mermaid. You have the fishy tail, the womans body, the ocean, there are just tiny little pieces missing in what you can tell is obviously going to be sand. There is no way the jigsaw puzzle will end up being anything else, you can see that its a mermaid. But, technically, the puzzle isn't finished. Apparently this means it isn't a mermaid? No, its definately a mermaid. Evolution definately occurs in living organisms and is definately the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
The theory of evolution isn't technically a fact because that puzzle isn't finished, but the picture is well and truely visible and it is a fact that the picture we can already see is evolution, not creation or anything else. Evolution.

 

How about those british moths whose color darkened after a few generations? Industrial pollution had covered the tree trunks with soot, so having a darker color represented an advantage over the light colored moths, who were easily spotted by predators.

 

:bugeye:

The whole premise of your request is faulty. There is no single “best” evidence for evolution, or any other scientific theory. Theories are formulated on the basis of large bodies of experimental and observational evidence, from repeated re-testing and re-sampling, from <I>de novo</I> predictions using the theory and evaluation of those predications. The ToE derives from studies of anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, genetics, microbiology, botany, zoology, and also from non-biological sciences like geology and paleontology. And many more on top of these fields. Trying to offer a single piece of evidence for any theory is silly as any single piece of evidence can potentially be explained numerous ways. Scientific theories are not formulated this way.

 

I figured, that in everybody's opinion, one piece of evidece must stand out as proof more than something else. then I thought that if a bunch of people give one piece of evidence, you can combine it all into a group of statements that best support the theory.

 

I disagree. I think the opposite, that some parts of the fossil record may be debated by evolutionary biologists as to what evolution happened but that all evolution can be explained by the process of natural selection.

Maybe u meant something different by that sentence?