How do people 'know' evolution has taken place?

[housingcrashsurvivor]

http://www.med.umich.edu/lrc/coursepages/M1/anatomy/html/quizzes/practical/examimages/coccyx_image_copy.jpg (broken link)

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Glad to see you responding, rifleman . . . the lurkers benefit greatly from your input. There is NO conflict between evolution and theism. It is the Creationists (especially the YEC) who erroneously believe there is. Your posts are a constant reminder to them and others and a prod to investigate the truth and rid themselves of their mistaken views. Keep it up, rifleman . . . you would be missed if you left. (Glad the mods were merciful)

And another fun fact. 39% of scientists hold traditional religious beliefs. Either 39% of scientists are living in a fantasyland or they've found a way to make a common ground between their religious beliefs and their acceptance of evolution.

[expect]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Regarding expect's post above: Here's another clear demonstration of a total lack of understanding of the process, and yet criticism is simultaneously provided. Amazing!

Evolution is the result of the outward expression of a changed and adapted genotype, selected for by exposure of it's phenotype to real world conditions. I'm not going to bother defining it further; look it up if you need to. Which I'd say you do! Phenotype versus genotype versus simple causal adaption within one individual. Your example, simply put, is unrelated to evolution.

Please, theist defenders... Don't just make the mistake of letting others do all your thinking for you. What if they make mistakes, or are lying?

(Which, BTW, they do, regularly. Personally, I'd take offense if those I trusted were purposefully lying to me. Just to sustain the unsustainable. Hardly "Christian", now is it?)

you seem pretty riled up there.. ive not once denied evolution, nor have i argued for or against the 2 sides of this debate.. the only points i've made here is that the theory of evolution is debatable (which another poster insisted that it wasnt, at all). that i misconstrued some things is one thing, and anybody would be right to point out where i deviated.. but all this "theist defenderz let otherz think for you"... what is all that.. bad day at work or somethin.. take a 20 minute break from your computer.

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by expect

the only points i've made here is that the theory of evolution is debatable (which another poster insisted that it wasnt, at all).

But the ToE is not debatable. Evolution happened. It is a FACT. The ToE is the explanation as to how the fact of evolution occurred.

Any debate about evolution is going to be about the nuances. Far too particular for a layman (like me) to fully understand.

[Shibumi]

It DOES seem that rifleman's comment about letting others do their thinking for them is valid from time to time. Else why such deviations from the facts? Examples:

∞ No-one that presents FOR evolution ever says man came from apes or monkeys, and yet that is such a common erroneous comeback from Christians.

∞ The insistence that evolutionary scientists produce an imaginary "missing linK" that is, as GCSTroop said, half dinosaur and half eagle. That's simply not how it works, they should know that by now, but they still regurgitate it, again and tiresomely, again.

It all seems to be a strategy prompted by the apologist Christian websites, which, by my read, take considerable pride in their many, many errors.

Then their readers come here and spew it, verbatim, knowing it's wrong. Why? Do they think this is how honest debates are won? If so, they lose on technique and etiquette alone.