Why is evolution hiding?

[Phatt Matt s]

I'm wondering if some "atheists" reject the belief that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms; tiny cell becomes an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and eventually you !

I know that evolution is indeed a fact but the belief that different types of animals evolved into other species is not fact or we would see them "evolving" into other types or at least need to see this to say it is fact.

Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species. We also see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either.

Isn't Evolution still called a theory, a possible explanation or assumption, because it is not testable according to the scientific method?

[SteelCurtain]

Oops. You've just slid into the annals of theists that don't do any research before they make grand declarations.

[Phatt Matt s]

Oops. You've just slid into the annals of theists that don't do any research before they make grand declarations.

Least of my problems

I lean more toward agnosticism actually. I have no proof there is a God.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Evolution is still called a theory, a possible explanation or assumption, because it is not testable according to the scientific method.

No, that's not why it's called a theory.

It's called a theory because it is a set of principles which thoroughly explains the phenomena it sets out to explain.

It is not an assumption and it IS testable according to the scientific method (the evolutionary process of microorganisms can be coaxed to work at a much faster pace and can be observed rather rapidly).

I'll let somebody more qualified on the subject take it from here.

[JuliaL]

Of course we see differences in progeny. Transitional forms abound.
I am not identical to my parents and my children are not identical to me.
Let's not get into the fact that I could probably breed with them. The observation that we are not identical is qualitative. Whether or not offspring from incest are fertile is just too yuck to think about.

[Phatt Matt s]

Well the purpose of this thread is to have meaningful discussion, because painfully I do not know many things; need to learn how to facilitate such fruitfull discussion that isn't of a pornographic or worthless nature, and by challenging beliefs about evolution, I can learn.

My hope and intention is not an argument, but the opportunity to learn, though this probably will turn into an argument, and much can be learned from that as well.

THis would include but is not limited to growing in patience, understanding human nature, desensitization, and examples of how not to behave.

[popeyespappy]

Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else?

Here is the evidence. Three Layers of Endogenous Retroviral Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

---

Oh, and evolution is only hiding from those that don't want to find it...

[tor]

I didn't think you will go as far as to make a failtopic.
Anyway here are 2 quotes from Francis Collins who is a head of human genome project.

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

[Phatt Matt s]

"If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle

---

One of my questions also was, "Are there Atheists that don't believe in this form of Evolution"?

[tor]

Even if there was no fossils at all DNA alone is enough to confirm evolution.
Btw there are plenty of transitional forms if you get your ass up and go to a museum.