Where is the evidence for evolution?

[Lutroo]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

I don't have to

I can show you a steady progression of non-complex life to complex life over a five hundred million year period showing that life evolved over that period

There were no dinosaurs or men 500 million years ago

Do you know how scientists date fossils? They date them based on which layer of the geologic column they're found in. Do you know how they date the geologic column? Can you guess? They date them by the fossils they find in them. Hmmm. Circular reasoning?

 

[Lutroo]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

What about trilobytes?

Yes...what about them?

You don't see any men mixed in with those fossils

You said that there was no complex life 500 million years ago. You are wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

I don't have to

I can show you a steady progression of non-complex life to complex life over a five hundred million year period showing that life evolved over that period

There were no dinosaurs or men 500 million years ago

Do you know how scientists date fossils? They date them based on which layer of the geologic column they're found in. Do you know how they date the geologic column? Can you guess? They date them by the fossils they find in them. Hmmm. Circular reasoning?

Of course they don't

Geologic strata follows a progression of time and pressure which is distinctly measurable.

There were no vertebrates 500 million years ago......life evolved

 

[rightwinger]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

What about trilobytes?

Yes...what about them?

You don't see any men mixed in with those fossils

You said that there was no complex life 500 million years ago. You are wrong.

Show me a vertebrate....trilobites are far from complex

 

[Lutroo]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

What about trilobytes?

Yes...what about them?

You don't see any men mixed in with those fossils

You said that there was no complex life 500 million years ago. You are wrong.

Show me a vertebrate....trilobites are far from complex

That just shows how truly ignorant you are. The compound eye of the trilobite is extremely complex.

 

[gtopa1]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

Science is all about disputing observations. It is what makes it Science and not mumbo jumbo. Once people start talking about "indisputable" you have propaganda.

Greg

 

[rightwinger]

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

What about trilobytes?

Yes...what about them?

You don't see any men mixed in with those fossils

You said that there was no complex life 500 million years ago. You are wrong.

Show me a vertebrate....trilobites are far from complex

That just shows how truly ignorant you are. The compound eye of the trilobite is extremely complex.

You asked for evidence of evolution and I provided it

A steady progression of increasingly complex life over 500 million years. Hence life "evolved" into more complex life

trilobite eyes do not negate that

 

[gtopa1]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

I don't have to

I can show you a steady progression of non-complex life to complex life over a five hundred million year period showing that life evolved over that period

There were no dinosaurs or men 500 million years ago

Do you know how scientists date fossils? They date them based on which layer of the geologic column they're found in. Do you know how they date the geologic column? Can you guess? They date them by the fossils they find in them. Hmmm. Circular reasoning?

Other methods are used to date fossils.

Dating dinosaurs and other fossils
Fossils themselves, and the sedimentary rocks they are found in, are very difficult to date directly.


Instead, other methods are used to work out a fossil’s age. These include radiometric dating of volcanic layers above or below the fossils or by comparisons to similar rocks and fossils of known ages.

Why date a fossil?
Knowing when a dinosaur or other animal lived is important because it helps us place them on the evolutionary family tree. Accurate dates also allow us to create sequences of evolutionary change and work out when species appeared or became extinct.

How to date a fossil
There are two main methods to date a fossil. These are:

• absolute dating methods that tell us the actual age (in years) of an object. There are many absolute dating methods. Nearly all of these methods make use of radioactive elements that occur naturally in various types of minerals and organic matter.
• relative dating methods that can only tell us whether one object is older or younger than another – they cannot pinpoint an actual age in years. Relative dating methods are used to work out the chronological sequence of fossils. They can be applied to fossils found at a particular site and can also be used to make comparisons between sites.

Where possible, several different methods are used and each method is repeated to confirm the results obtained and improve accuracy. Different methods have their own limitations, especially with regard to the age range they can measure and the substances they can date. A common problem with any dating method is that a sample may be contaminated with older or younger material and give a false age. This problem is now reduced by the careful collection of samples, rigorous crosschecking and the use of newer techniques that can date minute samples.


Dating methods Useful age ranges (years) Materials dated
Absolute dating methods:
Fission track 5000 to 100 million volcanic minerals, teeth
Potassium-argon and argon-argon 200,000 to > 4 billion volcanic rocks and minerals
Relative dating methods:
Chemical analysis 0 to > 4 billion bone and fossilised bone
Stratigraphy 0 to > 4 billion fossils and other objects found in identifiable layers of sediment or sedimentary rock
Biostratigraphy 0 up to 2 billion similar fossils from different sites
Palaeomagnetic stratigraphy 0 up to 80 million fossils found in layers of identified magnetic orientation
- See more at: Dating dinosaurs and other fossils - Australian Museum

Dating dinosaurs and other fossils - Australian Museum

I would tend to go to a reputable site. There are many but be careful; some make claims beyond the evidence.

Greg

 

[Lutroo]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

Science is all about disputing observations. It is what makes it Science and not mumbo jumbo. Once people start talking about "indisputable" you have propaganda.

Greg

It is a indisputable fact there are no undisputed transitional fossils. This is an observational fact. It does not fit the theory of gradual changes over millions of years. Does it? If a theory does not fit the observable facts, it fails.

 

[Lutroo]

What about trilobytes?

Yes...what about them?

You don't see any men mixed in with those fossils

You said that there was no complex life 500 million years ago. You are wrong.

Show me a vertebrate....trilobites are far from complex

That just shows how truly ignorant you are. The compound eye of the trilobite is extremely complex.

You asked for evidence of evolution and I provided it

A steady progression of increasingly complex life over 500 million years. Hence life "evolved" into more complex life

trilobite eyes do not negate that

The fossil record is proof of nothing. It does not show the gradual changes that evolution predicts. There is not a single undisputed transitional fossil. Explain this.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

Science is all about disputing observations. It is what makes it Science and not mumbo jumbo. Once people start talking about "indisputable" you have propaganda.

Greg

It is a indisputable fact there are no undisputed transitional fossils. This is an observational fact. It does not fit the theory of gradual changes over millions of years. Does it? If a theory does not fit the observable facts, it fails.

Evolution is a fact
How and why it occurs are still theories.
Does not refute the conclusion that evolution occurred over 500 million years

 

[gtopa1]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

Science is all about disputing observations. It is what makes it Science and not mumbo jumbo. Once people start talking about "indisputable" you have propaganda.

Greg

It is a indisputable fact there are no undisputed transitional fossils. This is an observational fact. It does not fit the theory of gradual changes over millions of years. Does it? If a theory does not fit the observable facts, it fails.

Evolution is a fact
How and why it occurs are still theories.
Does not refute the conclusion that evolution occurred over 500 million years

The question arises about what you mean by "evolution"? And what you mean by a fact. I'm Popperian on this.

Greg

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

Sure. Outside of the Harun Yahya madrassah we have things called "books", often kept in places called "schools" that provide science texts.

Thanks for proving that you cannot have an intelligent discussion about this.

No, your thread premise is proof you have no interest in an intelligent discussion; you wouldn't have asked such an idiotic 'question' otherwise.

As already correctly noted: there are many resources available to you to learn about evolution.

You could even do an online search for information about the subject, assuming you don’t wish to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Lutroo]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

Science is all about disputing observations. It is what makes it Science and not mumbo jumbo. Once people start talking about "indisputable" you have propaganda.

Greg

It is a indisputable fact there are no undisputed transitional fossils. This is an observational fact. It does not fit the theory of gradual changes over millions of years. Does it? If a theory does not fit the observable facts, it fails.

Evolution is a fact
How and why it occurs are still theories.
Does not refute the conclusion that evolution occurred over 500 million years

Evolution is not a fact. Show me one "fact" that proves it. Another thing you should consider. In the Grand Canyon, there is an area that contains several sedimentary layers. These layers are said to have been formed over millions of years. There is one section where these layers are bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? This is a scientific impossibility. Rock does not bend. If these layers were indeed formed over millions of years then they could not bend as they have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's never been observed...hence why it's a theory

There is also no observable evidence for it. So it's not really science.

There is a great deal of observable evidence. Just don't expect Harun Yahya to present it.

Yeah? Link the observable evidence

Look in a mirror – you’ll see the proof.

And if you can’t you’re another who wishes to be willfully ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's never been observed...hence why it's a theory

Evolution is a fact
God is a theory

And ‘god’ doesn’t exist as perceived by theists.

 

[Lutroo]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

Sure. Outside of the Harun Yahya madrassah we have things called "books", often kept in places called "schools" that provide science texts.

Thanks for proving that you cannot have an intelligent discussion about this.

No, your thread premise is proof you have no interest in an intelligent discussion; you wouldn't have asked such an idiotic 'question' otherwise.

As already correctly noted: there are many resources available to you to learn about evolution.

You could even do an online search for information about the subject, assuming you don’t wish to remain willfully ignorant.

LOL! Evolution has so many holes and contradictions, it's a wonder anyone can believe it. Talk about willful ignorance. There are also many resources online that refute your sources. What it boils down to is you saying that your sources are better tham mine. LOL!

 

[gtopa1]

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

Science is all about disputing observations. It is what makes it Science and not mumbo jumbo. Once people start talking about "indisputable" you have propaganda.

Greg

It is a indisputable fact there are no undisputed transitional fossils. This is an observational fact. It does not fit the theory of gradual changes over millions of years. Does it? If a theory does not fit the observable facts, it fails.

Evolution is a fact
How and why it occurs are still theories.
Does not refute the conclusion that evolution occurred over 500 million years

Evolution is not a fact. Show me one "fact" that proves it. Another thing you should consider. In the Grand Canyon, there is an area that contains several sedimentary layers. These layers are said to have been formed over millions of years. There is one section where these layers are bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? This is a scientific impossibility. Rock does not bend. If these layers were indeed formed over millions of years then they could not bend as they have.

Rock layers most definitely "bend"...due to forces involved in the movements of the various tectonic plates and subplates. It's called "folding" and there are many theories on it including the Expanding Earth Theory. The facts of direct observation(earthquakes) show this is well supported by the direct evidence. I would say we haven't heard the last on this though.

Greg

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm asking because I haven't seen any. There is not one single piece of observable evidence for evolution. Would anyone care to present any?

You are not looking very hard

You can start with fossil records that show NO record of sophisticated life forms 500 million years ago

The fossil record? Surely you jest. How about showing us just one example of a transitional fossil that is not disputed by other scientists? You can't. If evolution were a fact, as you suggest, there would be countless examples of them. What we see instead is a collection of distinct kinds, with variation in each group. Try again.

Science is all about disputing observations. It is what makes it Science and not mumbo jumbo. Once people start talking about "indisputable" you have propaganda.

Greg

It is a indisputable fact there are no undisputed transitional fossils. This is an observational fact. It does not fit the theory of gradual changes over millions of years. Does it? If a theory does not fit the observable facts, it fails.

This fails as a confirmation bias fallacy.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's never been observed...hence why it's a theory

There is also no observable evidence for it. So it's not really science.

There is a great deal of observable evidence. Just don't expect Harun Yahya to present it.

Yeah? Link the observable evidence

Look in a mirror – you’ll see the proof.

And if you can’t you’re another who wishes to be willfully ignorant.

You can't link it either can you? Know why? There isn't any, see Jonesy I knew this before I commented. You should start doing that and I wouldn't school you on a daily basis. Now you have a choice, link it or scamper off like you always do