What is the best evidence for evolution?

[housegirl]

Wanaukumbi,

Evolution is among the most debated theories in biological sciences. Propagated by Darwin in his book "the Origin of Species" in 1859, Darwin argued that evolution was the process through which organisms changed overtime to allow them better adapt to their environment. This theory has always received unwelcome signals especially in religious establishments. For this reason the Evolution theory has remained a hot topic which revokes countless arguments both for and against it. This posting therefore invites those with the best evidence for and against it avail it to the rest of us;

????????

cc Kiranga,

Evolution was known before Darwin. Darwin is famous for Natural Selection as means for evolution.
The drawing you posted IS MISLEADING. It does NOT show human evolution. Thanks to reporters for misquoting scientific papers as usual.

In high-school, learning about the classification of organisms and genetics made evolution very obvious for me.

Biochemistry, Biogeography, Paleontology, Radioisotope dating, Comparative anatomy, Molecular biology, genetics, Comparative embryology show evolution.

 

[housegirl]

Of course, I cannot explain some evidences here. However I can help you with a book.

You think they've ever read any thing about evolution?

 

[housegirl]

Samahani mkuu hivi mechanism ya upimaji wa carbon 14 katika miili ya viumbe au vitu unaijua?..je criticism za matumizi ya carbon 14 unayajua?

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

 

[housegirl]

Guys, this is one of the most interesting debate. Today i came across this paper by Dr Henry, i welcome all of us to examine what he has argued in light of what we are debating. Itasaidia kama tutapata masuala ua ku-raise

Na mimi ningekukopia page nzima.

Critism to all you quoted

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html

 

[housegirl]

GUIDE TO KNOWING SOME ONE WHO HAS NEVER READ ANYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION

-"it's just a theory"

-"it cannot be observed"

-"if we came from monkeys why aren't monkeys today changing to man! "

-" there is no fossil evidence"

-"only microevolution is possible"

"mutation should lose species not gain species "

-"if evolution is true where did the first organism come from"

-"how can you count 4million years!! "

-they use" the march of progress" to criticize evolution

-they copy paste

-they get all the evolution basics wrong

 

[housegirl]

Well, looking at Dr Henry history, I want to believe He wrote all that to try and envigorate majority of the community who believe in revolution to write further proves.

there are volumes and volumes of written evidence and studies in regards to evolution. The simple fact that He believes Neatherndals were before us, and Zinjathropus were the first human species, goes to prove evolution "happened" and we are constantly in changing. It is believed that 100,000 years from now, human beings will have large fore heads and bigger eyes, we can observe this by looking at human beings 500 years ago compare to people now, this seem to prove something is in the making.

Last but not least, NO ONE CAN LIVE TO OBSERVE EVOLUTION, evolution happens over a SIGNIFICANT amount of time/years. a human life span is limited to 120 years, the evidence of evolution happens over 100,000 years, that is almost 1000 times over a single life span.

Also, Dr. Henry needs to visit part of early human sightings to acquint himself with some evidence.

Their argument kwamba we never "saw" sio sawa. Otherwise most of the knowledge we have is false.

For example the galaxies tunazoambiwa ni millions of light years away, basi ni changa la macho. How can a human anayeishi miaka mia aone light years!!!

Tunajua planets huko nje Zina gesi gani wakati hatujapeleka chombo chochote kwenye Hizo planets.....

People should understand how scientists came to conclude evolution and not just give silly criticism.

 

[descarte]

You think they've ever read any thing about evolution?

I guess not
That is why they don't wanna accept

 

[J33]

Kama mwalimu napata changamoto sana kufundisha evolution theory hasa kwenye lower level. Ila mi ni muumini wa evolution theory. Nikijaribu kuangalia life span ya watu walioishi miaka mia iliyopita , nikiangalia body size za watu wazaman na sasa naamini evolution is real na bado inaendelea.

 

[Wickama]

Evolution was known before Darwin. Darwin is famous for Natural Selection as means for evolution.
The drawing you posted IS MISLEADING. It does NOT show human evolution. Thanks to reporters for misquoting scientific papers as usual.

In high-school, learning about the classification of organisms and genetics made evolution very obvious for me.

Biochemistry, Biogeography, Paleontology, Radioisotope dating, Comparative anatomy, Molecular biology, genetics, Comparative embryology show evolution.

Mkuu housegirl, this is a debate. If you have drawings which can show better your point of evolution the onus is on you to show it here. I have a feeling you have quite a stock of good thoughts only that you chose to be emotionally charged in your response to what others have posted

 

[iArmaniAdamson]

Samahani mkuu hivi mechanism ya upimaji wa carbon 14 katika miili ya viumbe au vitu unaijua?..je criticism za matumizi ya carbon 14 unayajua?

bila samahani.

ndio naifahamu, na shortcomings zake. nitatafuta documentary kwenye youtube niweke alafu ni ku-tag

 

[iArmaniAdamson]

Their argument kwamba we never "saw" sio sawa. Otherwise most of the knowledge we have is false.

For example the galaxies tunazoambiwa ni millions of light years away, basi ni changa la macho. How can a human anayeishi miaka mia aone light years!!!

Tunajua planets huko nje Zina gesi gani wakati hatujapeleka chombo chochote kwenye Hizo planets.....

People should understand how scientists came to conclude evolution and not just give silly criticism.

thats why there are tests like carbon 14 to determine when something happened but there are ALSO many other evidences to support any scientific theories, no need to see that a meteor landed in Chile, it is a much researched scientific fact based on numerous theories.

And you cant say "most of the knowledge we have is false" in part you are right but if someone wants to believe a lie, its individual choice. no one is forced, i know what i believe and what i dont believe.

things like light years, can be measured as well, the age of our planet can be measured you dont need to live for billion years to prove, you can use instruments to get a "rough idea" of how old is our planet. If someone tells you the earth is round, did you have to fly into space to prove? NO, someone proved to you through images and other evidences.

if you follow NASA they have documented the plant explorations and even though much is speculations but there is still alot which has been proven to be true.

remember we are still in the journey to discover....

 

[Kazata]

I remain skeptical about the theory of evolution.

There is nothing that is conclusive about it.

Dear Nyani Ngabu. You shouldn't be skeptical about evolution at all. Evidence on the existence of evolution abound everywhere in the world. The creationist theory is even more confusing than volution. The problem of evolution is that it is extremely slow to the extent that it takes longer than the number of years mankind is able to see it in action except for microbes. For higher life forms a single morphological change can take more or less 200,000 years. Have you ever asked yourself why domesticated animals such as dogs, chicken, ducks, domestic cat, horses, cattle, goats and sheep come in different colours and forms. On the other hand wild animals of a particular type living togeher such as wildebeests, cape buffalo, warthogs, wild dogs, giraffe, zebra, lion, leopard, cheetah, etc are all of exactly one colour and form. The answer is that with wild animals evolution is seen in action. That is the rule of the jungle dictates that only the fittest will survive. An animal cannot afford to be different from the rest otherwise it risks being preyed upon before it gives an offspring (which carries it genes). On the other hand domesticated are cushioned by mankind against the selection pressure of the wildlife environment. This is why the suppressed characters are expressed in due course without serious penalties. Further reading: The Greatest Show on earth: Evidence or evolution and The ancestors tale. The author of the two books is Prof. Richard Dawkins

 

[housegirl]

DThe problem of evolution is that it is extremely slow to the extent that it takes longer than the number of years mankind is able to see it in action except for microbes. For higher life forms a single morphological change can take more or less 200,000 years.

We have observed evolution in bigger organisms birds, fish and plants

 

[AsiyefanyaKaziAsile]

Mkuu housegirl, this is a debate. If you have drawings which can show better your point of evolution the onus is on you to show it here. I have a feeling you have quite a stock of good thoughts only that you chose to be emotionally charged in your response to what others have posted

Dear sir, it's not a debate if one or even both parties aren't competent in the subject at hand. All the anti-evolutionists in this thread know nothing, and the ones with some knowledge need to be better equipped I suggest, like the one mentioning Natural selection as "proof" for evolution.


I thought it was a question until I saw your pasted creationist article bashing evolution with silly arguments. The thread will soon be attacked with religious fanatics posting false information and I was simply alerting readers

I've tried debating before. sad seeing the same people still using the "it's just a theory" argument. Cognitive dissonance?

I unfortunately do not have time to be posting contents and I'm still on read myself.

I'm actually reading On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Then I'll be going to The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. All available free online.

For the busy or lazy ones you could be visiting http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home . pop sometimes
The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs

Here's a reasonable depiction of the evolution of man

human evolution

 

[Kazata]

We have observed evolution in bigger organisms birds, fish and plants

Thank you very much for the information

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Dear Nyani Ngabu. You shouldn't be skeptical about evolution at all.

Why shouldn't I if I'm not convinced?

Evidence on the existence of evolution abound everywhere in the world.

Really?

The creationist theory is even more confusing than volution.

So you admit that evolution theory is confusing, right?

The problem of evolution is that it is extremely slow to the extent that it takes longer than the number of years mankind is able to see it in action except for microbes.

Exactly, and thus making it 'untestable'.

For higher life forms a single morphological change can take more or less 200,000 years.

That's the phoney baloney coconut bacon that makes the whole thing lack convincing force. How does one even count 200,000 years? When was year one? So cockamamy.

Have you ever asked yourself why domesticated animals such as dogs, chicken, ducks, domestic cat, horses, cattle, goats and sheep come in different colours and forms.

Yes I have but that's true in just about everything. Even people come in all different shapes, sizes, colors, personalities, intelligence, etc.

On the other hand wild animals of a particular type living togeher such as wildebeests, cape buffalo, warthogs, wild dogs, giraffe, zebra, lion, leopard, cheetah, etc are all of exactly one colour and form.

I've seen white lions before. Haven't you? But even the ones that you think are the same color when you look closer you'll find different shades in them. Kinda like how some people have a darker complexion and some have lighter but all are considered black. So to me that doesn't prove anything, really.

The answer is that with wild animals evolution is seen in action.

Good try. I just don't see any evoluion in action with wild animals.

That is the rule of the jungle dictates that only the fittest will survive. An animal cannot afford to be different from the rest otherwise it risks being preyed upon before it gives an offspring (which carries it genes).

I think that is just a rationalization rather than actuality.

On the other hand domesticated are cushioned by mankind against the selection pressure of the wildlife environment. This is why the suppressed characters are expressed in due course without serious penalties. Further reading: The Greatest Show on earth: Evidence or evolution and The ancestors tale. The author of the two books is Prof. Richard Dawkins

Try again, sir. I'm yet to be convinced.

 

[Wickama]

Dear sir, it's not a debate if one or even both parties aren't competent in the subject at hand. All the anti-evolutionists in this thread know nothing, and the ones with some knowledge need to be better equipped I suggest, like the one mentioning Natural selection as "proof" for evolution.


I thought it was a question until I saw your pasted creationist article bashing evolution with silly arguments. The thread will soon be attacked with religious fanatics posting false information and I was simply alerting readers

I've tried debating before. sad seeing the same people still using the "it's just a theory" argument. Cognitive dissonance?

I unfortunately do not have time to be posting contents and I'm still on read myself.

I'm actually reading On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Then I'll be going to The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. All available free online.

For the busy or lazy ones you could be visiting http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home . pop sometimes
http://www.talkoriginhs.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Here's a reasonable depiction of the evolution of man

http://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution

Posted by housegirl

(mods do not merge my accounts again please!)

Mkuu, hakuna anaye-bash ideas za wengine. Hii ni barza. Mi naomba msaada. Ule unyayo nilioweka na You tube video kwenye thread hii una umri wa miaka millioni mbili na upo afrika kusini. Marekani imeshapatikana mifupa ya giants mithli ya wenye huo unyayo. Nikilinganisha ule unyayo na nyayo za sasa yaelekea ule ni kubwa pengine mara hamsini. Sasa wewe toa hukumu kwamba sisi basi tume evolve kuwa na miguu midogo kuliko wenzetu wa milioni mbili iliyopita kwa mara hamsini. Na badiliko hili la umbile lilichangiwa na hitaji gani la ki ekolojia? Hii ni bila kukutajia kuwa nyayo fresh design hiyo zilionekana miaka ya mwanzoni wa 1930s visiwa vya solomon islands (search solomon islands giants). Hawa giants hawapatikani tena. Sasa wako wapi kwenye evolution theory? Michoro yote inaonyesha kama vile sisi homo sapiens ndio wenye miili mikubwa.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Mkuu, hakuna anaye-bash ideas za wengine. Hii ni barza. Mi naomba msaada. Ule unyayo nilioweka na You tube video kwenye thread hii una umri wa miaka millioni mbili. Nikilinganisha ule unyayo na nyayo za sasa yaelekea ile ni kubwa pengine mara hamsini. Sasa wewe toa hukumu kwamba sisi basi tume evolve kuwa na miguu midogo kuliko wenzetu wa milioni mbili iliyopita kwa mara hamsini. Hii ni bila kukutajia kuwa nyayo fresh design hiyo zilionekana miaka ya mwanzoni wa 1930s visiwa vya solomon islands (search solomon islands giants). Hawa giants wako wapi kwenye evolution theory?

Hivi hiyo miaka milioni 200 inahesabiwaje?

Mwaka wa kwanza ulikuwa lini? Mwaka wa pili ulikuwa lini? Na wa milioni 100 ulikuwa lini?

 

[Wickama]

Hivi hiyo miaka milioni 200 inahesabiwaje?

Mwaka wa kwanza ulikuwa lini? Mwaka wa pili ulikuwa lini? Na wa milioni 100 ulikuwa lini?

Mkuu, to the best ya ninavyojua estimation ya c14 inatumia principle ya radioactive nuclides/activity zinazokuwa zimesalia kwenye kitu kilichokuwa hai na then kukadiria kuwa hadi kufika hapo ni miaka mingapi. Mi tatizo langu ni hawa giants ambao mabaki yao yamepatikana sehemu nyingi tu duniani. Hata huo unyayo unaonyesha umbile walilokuwa nalo. Sasa ni sahihi kudai hawa giants walii evolve kuwa sisi na udogo wetu au ni vipi?

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Mkuu, to the best ya ninavyojua estimation ya c14 inatumia principle ya radioactive nuclides/activity zinazokuwa zimesalia kwenye kitu kilichokuwa hai na then kukadiria kuwa hadi kufika hapo ni miaka mingapi. Mi tatizo langu ni hawa giants ambao mabaki yao yamepatikana sehemu nyingi tu duniani. Hata huo unyayo unaonyesha umbile walilokuwa nalo. Sasa ni sahihi kudai hawa giants walii evolve kuwa sisi na udogo wetu au ni vipi?

Oh kumbe ni makisio na makadirio tu.

Kama ni hivyo basi sawa.

Mi nilidhani labda wana njia ya uhakika ya kuhesabu hiyo miaka lakini kumbe kilichopo ni kubahatisha, kudhani, na kukadiria tu.

Kwa kweli mimi bado kabisa sijashawishika na hiyo nadharia.