Greatest scientific evidence for evolution?

[Kasz216]

highwaystar101 said:

letsdance said:

Rath said:
Fair enough, that last insult was fairly petty =P. I just find it amusing that someone is claiming the fossil record is a scam =P.

In any case those sources are not meant to be in depth - they are to give an overview of a subject, something that wikipedia is fine for.

If I were posting detailed evidence of anything I wouldn't use wikipedia, but it really is very good for giving a general overview of something.

However if you want;
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco1.htm

I find it funny that someone is claiming fossil records are proof. I mean... youre telling me fossils are proof of evolution... I mean... as rare as fossils are (and they are very rare) you claim it proves of evolution...

So let me get this straight.

A. A rare occurance of finding fossils

B. All of them pristine condition that over the billions of years hasn't been tampered with.

C. With the limited amount of fossils found you can prove that the species found in these fossils are all related when the fossils found are years and years and years apart and they weren't deformed or mutated or tampered or damaged.

So the proof you need to support macro evolution has to be one that can be observed within our lifetime? You can't say that to discredit evolution, fossil records are accurate enough to prove evolution. The observations can be seen repeatedly and the fossil records are strong.

How about macro evolution that has been observed within human history, with well documented records? Is that acceptable? Look up the evolution of the dog, humans domesticated wolves around 14,000 years ago. For years the wolves* hadn't evolved at a particularly fast rate because they were well adapted to their environment. But all of a sudden there was a major shift in their environment and evolution occurred extremely rapidly. From those few species of wolf that were domesticated 14,000 years ago we now have countless breeds of dog, because of the amount of different environments domestication brought. This has been recorded over the course of human history.

Ask yourself, does a chihuahua and a great dane look and act exactly the same? Because we have sufficient evidence to prove that they both evolved from a common ancestor in the space of only a few thousand years.

Source

* When I say wolves I mean an ancestor of the wolf.

You know Dogs are one of the things i don't get about the way we type our animals.  It really honestly seems like our naming is tenious when it comes to typing and I know there are movements to change it.

I mean.  Great Dane's and Chihuahua's for exaxmple are considered the same animal... yet wolves are different.  Yet wolves can just as eaisly interbreed as any other animal.

 

In all honestly Dogs should be part of Canus Lupus based on everything I know about it.  With the main difference i think... being that dogs are considered different becaue they're our pets.

Of course come to think of it.  That would include Coyotes too... and I think Jackals.  That's the thing.  The way we classify stuff is messed up.

Dogs are a good point though.  You can't tell a Great Dane fron a Chihuahua by looking at their DNA.  Yet they are clearly very different... which i'm guessing you didn't even realize, they have the same DNA to the point of where you can't tell the difference.

Or wolves from dogs actually.  DNA wise they're all the same.  Not sure about Coyotes and Jackals.