Thanks for answer. But I cant believe in evolution theory. There are many holes in the theory. Example, scientists said dolphin was a dog like land animal. their legs and tails disappeared, and developed fins. and how they developed fins? many animals live in the sea, but they have no fins. why sea snakes did not develop fins? They should developed a kind of doggy swimming style. you wont gain a new body part just because you need it. The nature just kill you if you are not fit.
Translation: you either never read Darwin or, lacking pop-up versions, were unable to make sense of it.
Your understanding and knowledge of pretty much everything involved in the topic you have decided to begin is very clearly limited and extremely incomplete. This thread was flawed the second you hit enter.
Here's how Evolution works its a very slow process so finding step by step fossils is unlikely however for human and human like ancestors we have DNA which with migration patterns we can very with Archeology and computer models traces our lines back a long time. For example we share DNA with Neanderthals so our early human ancestors mated with them likely a good deal and hybrids were found with traits of both species. There was a fine PBS special on this awhile ago. But crudely for Evolution you throw enough crap on the wall some will stick, only successful adaptions tend to survive and those adaptions suited to the needs of each species.
Clearly, some people have no hope of ever understanding the science they choose to hate and deny for the sake of their simplistic religious ideologies.
Agreed. Fossils are too rarely formed (and then found) to become a complete record of evolutionary history, but what we have does help. But the theory of evolution does not rely solely on fossils anyway. I think creationists continue to hammer at fossils in particular because they're the only form of evidence for evolution that many of them are even capable of understanding to any extent
Why don't you try doing some research? Put in some effort. Study up on dinosaur fossils and how they agree with evolution. Can you explain, for instance, why you think that "there should be tons of such fossils" if evolution is true (and it is)? Evolution doesn't describe fossilisation. That would be more the purview of geology and paleontology than evolutionary biology, and geologists and paleontologists could certainly help you to understand why fossils are as rare as they are.
Your knowledge of the fossil evidence is far from complete but we can't just post pictures of all the fossils for you to examine and I seriously doubt you'd believe they were authentic fossils if we did so why ask us for pictures in the first place? But if you ARE really interested in the subject, this site teaches what evolution is and presents the data that supports the theory and references for further study of the issue: Welcome to Evolution 101 Take a few months to learn all of this. You can't do this in one day.
Darwin devotes a full chapter in "The origin of species" on the subject of the rarity of fossils. http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html
I think, without some one on one tutoring, there is very little of the scientific world that the OP is likely to grasp. It is a shame as there is so much scientific beauty out there that he is missing out on.
I don't buy it either.... There are plenty of fossils, and they just found a new one, however the problem is all these fossils contradict one another, and when that happens these anthropologists say "well it must be a different branch of the tree".... There is no rhyme or reason behind the theory of evolution... There is no evidence to even suggest a) humans are related to any of these animals and b) any of these fossils share any relation at all. The best part is many of these fossils/animals existed roughly around the same time... Evolution should NOT be taught as fact - there is just not enough evidence to suggest evolution even exists let alone is fact.. It's a very interesting puzzle tho.
Religion plays no role in the way I feel about evolution. The problem is there aren't enough fossils to even call it a theory and to imply it exists in other animals can't be proven either.. Sure adaptation can be proven, but adaptation is not evolution. The fossil record is a mess and we keep finding more and more that disproves previous theories so I can't accept evolution as fact when some of these scientists are forced to rethink what they previously accepted as fact a few years ago because a new fossil was found. I will say what I do find troubling is that modern humans indeed walked with "cave men" so using that fact humans and what is commonly called "cave men" in laymans terms means modern humans and cave men are two different species or "evolved" at a different rate... There are just too many questions and not enough answers for evolution to be fact.
Mutation and natural selection are proven, and DNA and morphology represent quite an excellent "record" of evolutionary change. The fossils tell a different part of the story, offering concrete views into what existed in past ages, something we would otherwise have to infer from the other evidence. Understand that evolution is far from being based only on fossils, and far from being dependent on fossils to be a valid, proven theory and an observed fact. "Adaptation" is another matter. Humans are extremely adaptable by virtue of our minds - we can adapt to many different environments and situations. Physical adaptation is oftentimes just a relatively quick change in gene expression, say to favor one fur color over another. But that is quite different from evolution over very long periods of time, where genetic mutations in a given interbreeding population accumulate to produce new features that were not previously possible for that population. Evolution also makes predictions, such as the presence of vestigial structures. These structures are not necessarily useless, but certainly their function has changed. One of my favorite examples since learning of it is the emu and its wings - it has stubby, useless little wings because evolved from a flying bird. Today it is decidedly a land animal, rather like its theropod ancestors from the age of dinosaurs. Another good one is the teeth that birds carry the genes to produce, and which they do produce inside the egg before losing again prior to hatching. There is a great deal to study and understand in life and its evolution. Fossils are useful but, as I've said, are not the most important thing. As for "cave men," it's not clear which species you mean to refer to with this. There are many species of extinct hominid, many of whom have probably inhabited caves at one time or another. Our kind has as well, or there wouldn't be all those wonderful cave paintings left over
Do you mean Neandertals? They were indeed a different species living at the same time as modern humans.
It does not matter what Darwin has said but the theory of evolution even in the post Darwin period is commonly accepted by communities of scientists. There is evidence to support all Darwin had said. This is not a hypothesis but full of experimented or empirical proofs. Evolution is a fact. There cannot be no other way. Even religiously and spiritually oriented people believe in evolution.
They've found thousands of fossils from different humanoid species from the first humanoids millions of years ago to cro-magnons just 40,000 years ago. If not a product of evolution, how did modern man come into existence?
