Evolutionism.

Christianiadelic said:

Almost choked on my spliff when I read this. Macchiavelli himself could not have said it better.

Click to expand...

Nor could I, those are the words of Christopher Hitchens, whom I whole heartedly agree with on this subject. Hitchens is, in my opinion, the most intestering man of the last half century. I miss him greatly, he left us too young. He'd be having a field day with ISIS.

We've only been recording our history very recently in the grand scale of time.

As far as humans go we are evolving, all the time!

Every successive generation of people bring a whole new wave of minor genetic changes/mutations, hence why people on average are getting taller than they used to be, because taller people are more likely to reproduce.

To keep it simple, we aren't going to see any major changes in our species in our lifetimes, or that of our children or even their children. Evolution is a complicated and intricate process that while we know it happens we don't quite know the mechanics of it yet.

Just because we have a higher standard of living doesn't mean we're evolving differently than every other animal. Well, we are, but that sentence would be true for every animal as they are all always evolving too.

I won't get into any debates over this. This is my one and only response to OP's question.

There are fossils mapping the evolutionary history of life in brilliant detail, from all over the tree of life.
Pick anything that leaves good fossils, like an animal with a skeleton, and there's a rich fossil record showing its evolution.

Doing comparative anatomy of fossil specimens, cataloging their traits, you can build cladograms, and find the most parsimonious arrangement.
Doing so matches the cladograms built by heaps of other independent methods of investigation, like ERV codes in genetics, and comparative anatomy in extant species.
Having so many independent fields of investigation converging on the same answer greatly reinforces that the cladogram we've found is the phylogenetic tree, the common ancestry family tree of life.

The funny thing is that christians ask for a intermediate species to show evolutionary proof in the fossil record.

Science finds sedimentary rock the correct age and look for the intermediate fossil and find it.

A species perfectly showing the characteristics predicted to be possessed by the species that was previously undiscovered.

Instead of giving it credit creationists then say "ah, now there are two gaps."

They argue in bad faith.

ThickStemz said:

The funny thing is that christians ask for a intermediate species to show evolutionary proof in the fossil record.

Science finds sedimentary rock the correct age and look for the intermediate fossil and find it.

A species perfectly showing the characteristics predicted to be possessed by the species that was previously undiscovered.

Instead of giving it credit creationists then say "ah, now there are two gaps."

They argue in bad faith.

Click to expand...

It's also unreasonable to assume we'd have a fossil for every possible iteration of an organism throughout it's evolution, which a lot of those who argue against evolution demand.

I tend to use the example of a puzzle and it works for a lot of different scenarios, this one being perfect.

If you have a simple 12 piece puzzle and you only have 8 pieces, you can still put this pieces together and see the majority of the image and even predict what will fill in the gaps of the missing pieces based on the image around it, even if you never find those pieces.