OneUpBoy71:
Respectfully, I highly recommend that you stop talking about evolution, because based on what you're writing, you actually know very, very little about it, and I fear have been severely misinformed. You may be embarrassing yourself if people actually familiar with evolution read what you're writing.
Some quick responses, though I hope someone else with more time and/or knowledge chimes in:
One example that comes to mind is
Australopithacus afarensis, or "Lucy," as she's popularly known. The name links to a site that is not Wikipedia if you'd like to read more. I am also sure that there are many, many more examples, if you'd care to look at sites that cover evolution, rather than echo-chamber sites that disparage it. Try doing some searches for phrases like "ascent of man" or "homo habilis," and you might find quite a bit of information from informed, research-based sources who may have a bit more credibility than Wikipedia.
Do you have any links to those sources? I believe they were mistaken, but I suppose I could be.
That's not how evolution works, and that you ask that question is very telling. Evolution is not about an entire species changing all at once into new species. It is about some members of a species making slight changes that help them thrive, so they pass those changes onto their young, and over a very long period of time those few expand into a new species (i.e., when that first early human stood up straight and and enjoyed the benefits of standing a little higher up, it took many thousands of years for there to be entire groups of these straight-standing people. We didn't all stand up straight once).
That new species represents a
departure from the old species, not an
erasure of it. Only a few apes evolved into humans, the rest continued to thrive without a need for change. Again, someone else might be able to explain this better, but suffice it to say that evolution is done by small minorities of species, and the original majority will continue as it was (or perhaps evolve down a different path). This is not an all-inclusive process.
Yes, you're wrong .
Of course you haven't seen a creature evolve into another creature. The process is extremely gradual and takes millions of years; it is not instant. Even mutations (like standing erect), which in individuals is fairly sudden, take many, many generations to become widespread enough to call something a new species. And yes, over those thousands or millions of years, that squirrel will likely appear to observers at the time to look pretty much like its parents; the changes are subtle. That said, there are likely exceptions to this, especially among species like insects that reproduce much more quickly. Also, I guess that you are seeing evolution happening all the time: that squirrel you're looking at is quite different from its ancestors from millions of years ago, and its descendents millions of years from now will be quite different from, it, so you are seeing a moment of evolution every time you look at a squirrel.
BTW, Piltdown-man, Nebraska-man, and Java-man were all PT Barnum-esque side-show hoaxes that had nothing at all to do with actual scientific discovery or research. That you point them out at all is very odd.
Again, I hope someone more knowledge clarifies these brief responses, and I sincerely hope you give their words some attention.
Also, I hope I've presented this stuff as respectfully as possible, no insults or sarcasm were intended.