[Brinnie]

hi, lolz!1 i want everyone to take a break from your normal debate and answer these 2 questions:

1. do you believe in tradition evolution?
2. why?

ok, ill start.

1. NO.
2. the lack of fossils linking monkey to man.

that simple. no debate or arguments plz.

[ughaibu]

1. Yes
2. The question is as clear as "do you believe in the sun".

[CraigD]

1. Yes
2. The formalism of computational evolutionary biology

[freeztar]

1. Yes
2. The abundance of evidence

It has been suggested that species close to last common ancestors of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 mya, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzee (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. We have no fossil record, however, of either group of African great apes, possibly because bones do not fossilize in rain forest environments.

Hominines, however, seem to have been one of the mammal groups (as well as antelopes, hyenas, dogs, pigs, elephants, and horses) that adapted to the open grasslands as soon as this biome appeared, due to increasingly seasonal climates, about 8 mya, and their fossils are relatively well known. The earliest are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7–6 mya) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya), followed by:

* Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 mya), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;
* Australopithecus (4–2 mya), with species Au. anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, Au. bahrelghazali, and Au. garhi;
* Kenyanthropus (3-2.7 mya), with species Kenyanthropus platyops
* Paranthropus (3–1.2 mya), with species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei, and P. robustus;
* Homo (2 mya–present), with species Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[REASON]

1. Yes, of course.

2. It is a natural process that makes obvious sense, and is supported by tremendous amounts of observable evidence and data, as well as the abundance of experts in the related fields of study. Where my knowledge and understanding is lacking, I choose to align my beliefs with them.

[Eclogite]

1. Yes, (Though I remain a closet Lamarckian because I never like the status quo)
2. All the other factors mentioned above by other posters, but especially:.
a) The progressive and systematic change in fossil character as we move from horizon to horizon can be explained by two processes. Multiple special creations, or evolutionary process. We have observed evolutionary process in the very limited time scale we have been observing for. We have never observed special creation.
b) Commonality of genetic structure, genetic content, metabolism, biochemistry and the like.

[Boerseun]

1) Yes.
2) Because my dachshund is the missing link between puffadders, crocodiles, cane rats and Satan:

[C1ay]

1. Yes
2. The theory of evolution enables testable predictions that confirm the theory.

[Zythryn]

1) Yes
2) All of the above plus the fact that there is no competing theory that fits the evidence as well as or better than the evidence.

[The D.S.]

1. Mos def Yes
2. Because creationism has zero credibility and evolution has more of an abundance of evidence than most people give it credit for...aka look at all the posts below mine