Because of the lack of hard parts. Geological upheaval (this affects all fossils to a certain degree ). To name two reasons that are supported by the evidence. It also hinges on what you mean as " little. " The evidence, by way of analogy, would convict a saint of murder. It is strong enough for that and strong enough to support evolutionary theory
-Fossil -Biological -Genetic
Fossils. These show the incredible amount of time required to turn early life forms into stone. Studying the fossils, one can see the similarities and evolution of species over time. UNREST.
The four sources of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution are fossils, the development of life forms, changes over life forms over the years and the way in which related species are distributed across the world.
That which does not provide evidence for evolution is not necessarily something that tends to disprove evolution. So it is hard to narrow down to something relevant but does not provide evidence for evolution. As for something that actually tends to disprove evolution, this is equally hard but for different reasons - the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that there is very little that can provide any form of contrary evidence.
The study of evolution is a lifetime occupation for many scientists, but what most people need to know is that evolution is the process of change by which primitive early species developed into more complex ones. It is the process by which all life forms, that we know today, emerged.
-Fossil -Biological -Genetic
Fossils. These show the incredible amount of time required to turn early life forms into stone. Studying the fossils, one can see the similarities and evolution of species over time. UNREST.
organic evolution is thus the progressive development of animals and plant from ancestors of different forms and function
Intermediate species forms, yes. A the taxa level, no. Still, not all taxa evidence is supportive of punctuation and stasis. Punctuated equilibrium is only one explanation of how evolution occurs in some species, not all species. The little shellies evidence gradualist processes very well.
There is little evidence of such a compound.
The four sources of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution are fossils, the development of life forms, changes over life forms over the years and the way in which related species are distributed across the world.
Evolution produces both larger and smaller forms, depending on circumstances. This is true for any lifeform, and it is true for mammals.
That which does not provide evidence for evolution is not necessarily something that tends to disprove evolution. So it is hard to narrow down to something relevant but does not provide evidence for evolution. As for something that actually tends to disprove evolution, this is equally hard but for different reasons - the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that there is very little that can provide any form of contrary evidence.
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
A creationist idea of " transitional " forms. The crocaduck, a dog giving birth to kittens and other nonsense that would violate the basic tenets of evolutionary theory.
The study of evolution is a lifetime occupation for many scientists, but what most people need to know is that evolution is the process of change by which primitive early species developed into more complex ones. It is the process by which all life forms, that we know today, emerged.
Yes. Their retention of certain reptilian traits suggests that they are an early offshoot of the branch that stemmed from those ancestral reptiles and from which modern mammals eventually evolved. Such intermediary forms are exactly what we'd expect to find if this sort of thing had been going on.