Evolution

Fossils are like the clues the police use to solve a crime.

Each one tells a story. Like clues to a crime, where the police don't have to find a print of every footstep taken by a subject or confirm every thing that he did, the clues paint a logical outline of all the events around the crime.

Like clues in a crime the police do not initially identify a person they want to pin the crime on and then seek to tie him to the event - they find a number of clues which identify potential subjects of interest. They then attempt to prove the relation of these suspects to the crime until the trail of evidence is strong and dependable. Usually multiple facts on the same evidence are considered - for a crime it might be fingerprints and video tape and eye witnesses, for fossils it could be carbon 14 and dendronchronology and geologic strata.
It shows how organisms change over time.
Correct, yes. For example, the earliest vertebrates are jawless fishes, followed by fish with jaws. The earliest terrestrial vertebrates bear uncanny resemblance to sarcopterygian lungfish. The earliest fossils of reptiles bear remarkable resemblance to those earlier amphibians. The earliest birds share numerous reptilian features of therapsid dinosaurs.

This is just vertebrate evolution--we can trace similar stories of change in botanical fossil records, and the fossil record for various invertebrates.
Fossils indicate evolution occurred as they detail variations in bone structures of related animal species, and in plant forms and structures. Radioisotope dates of rock strata demonstrate how plants and animals changed over time. Fossils also reveal how the climate of an area in which the animal or plant lived in changed over of time and how the animal or plant adapted to its environment.

Fossils are remains or impressions of ancient creatures, some of which represent lineages now extinct, and others from which existing species evolved.
Well, do the skeletons of animals today look the same as those found as fossils? The differences between today's living organisms and those that lived thousands of years ago are the very idea of evolution: that life is constantly changing.
fossils are the cool thing about the evidence, as years go by a rock like build up happens and when this works into place you can see the years by the rock that is present around the fossils. when you see what rocks or how far you have dug the rocks will show you what the years it was in.

Of course not. Evolution is not a lie but a well supported theory. Some people believe it's a lie because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, being unable to provide any valid alternatives or evidence their arguments are not compelling. Two points I'd like to make. Most religious people who try to disprove this widely accepted theory, which forms the basis of biology, don't understand it. Evolution simply states that species can change over time. We have examples of evolution within our own recorded history. Different breeds of dogs, medicinal and edible plants are all examples of evolution. Evolution is a change in genome frequencies over time. Another example: Consider a population of moths, some are black and most are white because they have different genetic material. During the industrial revolution the trees the moths live on were partially covered with soot. Therefore the black ones avoided predation as they were camouflaged when they sat on the trees whereas white ones where clearly visible therefore were eaten more often by birds. Black moths had a high fitness (reproductions over a life time) in this environment and therefore more black moths were able to transfer the black alleles. The next population is going to be mostly black due to the increase in black genes transferred. This is an example of evolution as black allele frequencies increase and white allele frequencies decrease. This has all been observed and recorded. Ultimately it was noted that the predominantly black moth population now in this new environment and with different environmental pressures developed into a population that couldn't breed with their old half white half black ancestors. This constitutes a species; a population that cannot interbreed. This is a witnessed and recorded example. It is a fact. You can also look to the many different colored goldfish you buy. Some of these diverged from the same goldfish ancestor. Therefore evolution is not a lie those that do not accept it do not understand it because they consider that it suggests that God did not create organisms which on the contrary, it does not oppose.

As for the genetic drift argument below, a gene typically contains a thousand base pairs. Frequently these will be missing or reversed--EVERY single individual contains such mutations. These errors usually have no effect--they are benign. Sometimes they are beneficial, although usually they are detrimental. When they cause harm, the individual with those defective genes tend to be less capable of breeding, and passing on the harmful mutation. Sometimes, however, even a defective gene may spread through a population. One excellent example is the gene responsible for producing the protein that synthesizes ascorbic acid (vitamin C). This gene broke in early old world (African) primates. New world (South American) primates, which diverged before the gene broke, have a functioning copy. Our gene, inherited from the old world monkeys, is broken in the same manner. Creationists might want to ask themselves why God would break a gene in humans the same way it was broken in monkeys, if not to serve as evidence for common ancestry. No other mammal (except a species of fruit bat and hamsters) have a broken GULO gene. And in fruit bats and hamsters the gene is not broken the way it is in old world primates (apes and humans).

"Man to dung beetle" is typical of creationist misunderstanding of evolution. This needs no further elaboration.

The creationist then resorts to mathematical chicanery to illustrate a point about DNA replication, suggesting it takes a second for each link in a strand to form. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) lays this idea to rest. Although it takes 20 minutes to amplify any DNA primer or set of primers, the power of exponential growth results in millions and billions of copies over a period of a single day. The drawback is that all of these are subject to random mutation. The advantage is that environmental selection is minimized, so the copies are static. An altered environment is the engine that propels evolutionary change.

You can use the same creationist DNA argument on a rock. A rock contains billions of atoms, each of which occupies a particular location. The odds against any specific rock are infinestismal, yet rocks are commonplace. Granted, "non living" arragements are more common that arrangements of atoms capable of self reproduction. Still, every bacterium is unique, and there are uncountable numbers of those. The biosphere is rife with various arrangements of successful replicators. Randomness factors in to EACH replication, as any given chromosome in an organism is likely to contain at least one errant base pair. Gene duplications, insertions, and deletions introduce thousands of base pair changes all at once, whereas polyploidy introduces millions of them.

Absolutely evolution IS a lie. Evolutionists cloak their lies by discussing natural selection and mutation and passing them off as evolution. Natural selection and mutation happen every day-no one would deny that. However, true Darwinian evolution has NEVER happened and will NEVER happen. I challenge any and all evolutionists to show real scientific evidence of even one animal EVOLVING into another animal (cat to dog, lizard to bird, ape to man, man to dung beetle....you get the idea). C'mon....all I need is just one. Good luck. Additions to answer two: Here are some stats (ie real data) you should look into in order to make an informed decision: There are approximately 50,000 genes in the human body. A single gene is made up of hundreds of thousands of chemical bases arranged in a very specific order. If even one of these chemical bases was missing or was placed in a different spot in the order, humans would be anything from a puddle of goo to who knows what. Knowing this, consider the statistical probability of getting these chemical bases of these genes in exactly the order that they need to be to create us. Consider the following exercise: 1. Take 3 numbered blocks, put them in a box and shake them up. There are six possible combinations of these three numbers. The probability of pulling the blocks out in order is 1 chance in 6. 2. Next add two more numbered blocks to make a total of 5. Now there are 120 possible combinations. The probability of pulling the blocks in orderhas increased to 1 in 120. 3. Next we'll add 4 more numbered blocks to make 10 total. Now the probability has increased to 1 in 3.5 million. If someone were to pull one block every 15 seconds, the probability of pulling the blocks in order would happen once every 18 months. 4. Next lets double the quantity of numbered blocks to a total of 20. If you could pull all 20 blocks out in just one second and repeat this every second, the probability of pulling the blocks out in order would occur once every 77 billion years (keep in mind that evolutionists maintain that the age of the universe is only about 10 billion years). This little numbers game is nothing compared to the complexity of even the simplest bits of matter. For example, the chance of forming a two-thousand atom protein molecule as something like one in 10 to the three hundred and twenty-first power (that's 10 followed by 320 zeros). Again, just as a reminder, there are 50,000 genes in the human body made up of hundreds of thousands of chemical bases each that must be arranged exactly the way that they are to make you. In the grand perspective of things, if you consider all plant and animal life on the planet and the specific order required to make all of them, there is no possibility of random chance evolution. Thank God for statistics.

Vitis vinifera is the botanical name of grapes.

Family: VITACEAE The Grape family

Type and Use: Deciduous vine with edible leaves and fruit. Fruit is eaten, made into wine, jellies, jams, and other food products.

Yes, evolution has been proven true.

Richard Lenski has been very precisely observing twelve cultures of E. coli bacteria since 1988 and has documented multiple occurrences of new genes appearing in the DNA of those bacteria.

_____________________________________________________

Evolution is also still a "theory" having yet to be proven.

Before anyone starts bragging about the E. coli experiment that supposedly (but didn't) prove evolution. The end result, after 50,000 generations of breeding, with the experiment only proved life will find a way. It will adapt. Not evolve. Case in point... He got E. coli to live in an inhospitable environment, well, so do the Sherpa and Eskimos of today.

After 50,000 generations of E. coli breeding and experimentation... it has not evolved into another species.

50,000 generations ago... Humans were known as Homo erectus.

25,000 generations ago... Neanderthals were walking around.

There are SEVERAL complete species of change between modern humans and the ancestors walking around 1,000,000 years ago. And after 50,000 generations... he still has "just" E. coli.

We are still missing some key piece of evidence for the validation of evolution.

Answer

Technically, you can refute wrong ideas (hypotheses/theories) but you can never prove anything absolutely. Evolution is spectacularly evidence-supported. Evolution has no refutation. We are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that evolution is true. Note how pedantic this. With all the evidence we might as well say that we are 100% sure that evolution is true and that evolution is a theory that is more than a theory (a fact). Evolution is correct and is accepted by all respectable scientists who accept it due to its evidence.