The evidence supporting evolution comes from various fields of science in overwhelming quantities. Although widely known amongst the scientific community, such evidence is not too well known to the general population (particularly the US). Because evolution contradicts ancient creation stories most are hesitant to discuss the topic. This has left the public open and vulnerable to many related misconceptions or a belief that there may not be any evidence. Many understand micro-evolution because they can see it but this section will give you a glimpse of the overwhelming evidence supporting macro-evolution, the origin of life's diversity (various species) from a common ancestor.

Contrary to what most assume, legs were not originally developed for walking on land. The evolution of primitive feet and legs took place in the water, shallow fresh water to be more specific. The first fish to develop legs were carnivorous, living in shallow waters helped them avoid larger carnivorous fish and allowed them to eat smaller fish hiding in shallow waters along with bug-like critters along the banks. Primitive legs gave these fish advantages by being able to crawl around the bottom of shallow waters (as some modern fish do) and stabilize themselves in moving water.

It was not until later that amphibians moved on to land as they developed a pelvis that was more firmly attached to the spine and shoulders that were separated from the skull. Keep in mind that developing lungs was not a problem since ancient fish already had lungs. It was not until later that the lungs of most modern fished evolved into a hydrostatic organ used to allow fish to adjust the density of its body to match the density of the water surrounding it, instead of being used as a breathing apparatus.

Placodermi Placoderms (of the class Placodermi) were the first fishes with jaws which evolved from the first of their gill arches. Their head and thorax were covered by articulated armored plates and the rest of the body was scaled or naked.

Eusthenopteron Eusthenopteron looked and behaved a lot like modern fish, but hidden within its fins were an early form of arm and leg bones. This fish also had a very amphibian-like backbone & skull, elbow & knee joints, internal nostrils and also teeth that were common with all of the earliest known Tetrapods (creatures with 4 legs).

Panderichthys Panderichthys was a very tetrapod-like fish with many transitional features. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. Panderichthys had a large flat head & body, lungs and nostrils. It's tail was similar to amphibians with the fins stretched out along the top. Panderichthys has lost its dorsal and anal fins, leaving 4 fins in the place where legs would be in the Tetrapods. These limbs contained a humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and a femur, tibia and fibula in the hind limb. These leg bones are however still contained inside a set of fins keeping a strong external resemblance to earlier fish.

Tiktaalik roseae Tiktaalik is thee perfect example of a transitional fossil. It lived at just the right time between ancient fish and early Tetrapods and is a perfect mix of the two, hence the nick name "fishapod." At first glance you notice the fish like fins, scales, and gills but unlike fish it's head and body are flat with the eyes on the top of its skull (more like a crocodile than a fish). Its shoulders are not connected to the skull, giving it a functional neck that fish lack. It also has ribs like some of the earliest tetrapods which were used to aid in breathing and support the body, something fish don’t need. Weather conditions only allow 1 month a year for exploration and digging in the area yet 20 individual specimens have still been uncovered to date, 3 of which were uncovered as complete skeletons. The structure of its front fin and shoulders tell us that Tiktaalik lived most of its life in shallow water close to shore, using its strong front fins to push along the bottom and stabilize it in moving water. Scales Tiktaalik has scales covering its entire body like a fish Fins Tiktaalik has fins it could have used to swim like a fish Neck The shoulder bones of fish are attached to their skulls, but Tiktaalik's head and shoulders don't connect, allowing it to move its head around on its neck. Flat Head Tiktaalik's head is much flatter than a fish's. Its eyes sit on the top of its skull like a crocodile rather than on the sides of its head like a fish.   Ear Notches These notches in Tiktaalik's skull are closer in size to those found in tetrapods than in other Devonian fish. In tetrapods, a version of this notch served as a primitive ear. Fin Skeleton Peel away the scales and fin rays on the outside of Tiktaalik's fin and you see an unusual internal structure. It has the same basic pattern of bones that all limbed animals share. Although Tiktaalik couldn't yet walk, its front fin skeleton suggests it was capable of supporting much of its weight on these fins.   Learn more at http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu   Ribs Underneath all those scales Tiktaalik has a full set of ribs that would have helped it breathe air and support its body. Fish don't need these kinds of ribs because they breathe with gills and let the water support their weight. Gills & Lungs Tiktaalik, like other primitive fish, had both lungs and gills. We know that Tiktaalik had gills because of the presence of rod-like bones which help pump water over gills. We can infer the presence of lungs because lungs are actually a primitive feature in fish; they existed before gills. Most modern fish have kept their gills for breathing and evolved a swim bladder from their ancient lungs to aid in buoyancy. Most living tetrapods have lost their gills entirely but kept their lungs for breathing.

Acanthostega The fin-to-foot transition was almost complete as Acanthostega, an early amphibian, had distinctly observable feet. It is even most likely the first vertebrate to be capable of coming onto land. The legs were not completely developed yet as they lacked wrists and could not support all of the animal's weight. Overall it was still poorly adapted for life on land but capable never the less. Acanthostega still retained many fish-like characteristics such as internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration. These traits suggest that they were not fully terrestrial. It's shoulder and forelimb also had a resemblance to fish ancestors.

Ichthyostega Ichthyostega, also an amphibian, is one of the first animals with official legs, arms and finger bones. The legs were still too weak for regular walking but they still had the basic structure of modern tetrapod legs. The legs were used to maneuver around marshy landscapes, thick vegetation and hauling itself along muddy banks. This is what would have led to strengthening of the legs until legs were able to carry the full weight of their owner a little bit further down the evolutionary chain.

Many creationists point out that mammal jaws consist of one mandibular bone while reptiles have three and that mammals have three bones in their middle ear while reptiles have one. Are these structural differences too extreme to be explained by evolution? Many have assumed so but it only takes some basic math skills to solve this problem...

Yes, the two bones from the jaw of reptiles have actually made their way into the ears of mammals. The big question is why did these bones merge with the ear and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime? What we know from modern day reptiles is that those bones in their jaw is actually used for hearing. Reptiles use those three bones to hear low frequencies and the vibrations from the lower jaw are transmitted to the single "ear bone" (the stapes) which in turn transmits the vibrations to the inner ear.

The real key supporter of this transformation is the well documented fossil record that actually shows us the sequences demonstrating how bones from the reptilian jaw developed into the bones of the mammalian ear. There are many different transitional forms in the fossil record that and each one shows us every step of how this happened. Thankfully jaw and ear bones are commonly well preserved. This fossil sequence is further supported by the embryological evidence showing that the same structures that develop into parts of the lower jaw in reptile embryos also develop into the bones of the ear in mammals.

Those who favor traditional beliefs over actual history have often spread rumors about the fossil record. For example the Christian website darwinismrefuted.com claims "Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found." Such a claim can be responded to with just one word, Therapsids. In reality there are so many known transitional fossils linking reptiles and mammals that the intermediate stages had to be classified as its own species group called Therapsids. Therapsids are a group of vertebrates that have both reptile and mammal traits. They were the dominant land animals around 260 million years ago and are the link between reptiles and mammals. Below are just a few examples of known Therapsids...

	Name: Anteosaurus Age(s): 266-260 million years ago Period: Late Permian (Capitanian) Size: 5-6 metres Notes: Anteosaurus was a large carnivore and probably weighed around 500-600Kg. It belongs to the group Anteosauria and is known from numerous skulls and other remains.
	Name: Cynognathus Age(s): 242-240 million yers ago Period: Early-Mid Triassic (Spathian-Anisian)     Size: 1m Location found: South Africa (Karoo region), Lesotho, Argentina, Antarctica, China Notes: The skull of Cynognathus possessed a secondary palate, allowing it to breathe and eat at the same time. It lacked ribs in the posterior trunk region, suggesting that it had an efficient diaphragm. Pits in the snout region of the skull suggest the presence of vibrissae (whiskers). Its name means 'dog jaw'
	Name: Dicynodon Age(s): 260-250 million years ago Period: Late Permian  Size: 1.2 metres Location(s) found: South Africa, Tanzania, Russia, China Notes: Dicynodon was a herbivore and probably fed on roots and tubers. Its mouth had two tusks and scientists think it possessed a keratinous beak. Its name means 'two dog teeth'.
	Name: Lystrosaurus Age: 250 million years ago Period: Late Permian-Early Triassic Size: 1 metre Location(s) found: Antarctica, South Africa, India, Russia, China, Mongolia Notes: Lystrosaurus was a barrel-chested herbivore and probably lived in an arid environment. It had a pair of tusks, robust legs and a stumpy tail. It is known from several specimens, including well-preserved skulls. The genus, or group, survived the extincition at the end of the Permian.
	Name: Moschops Age: 285 million years ago Period: Early Permian Size: 5 metres Location(s) found: South Africa (Karoo region)  Notes: Moschops was a heavily-built mammal-like reptile. It was a herbivore with a large head and a short tail. Its skull was thickened and it is thought males participated in head-butting. Moschops belongs to the family Tapinocephalidae. The name Moschops means 'calf face'.
	Name: Oligokyphus Age(s): 227-180 million years ago Period: Late Triassic-Early Jurassic  Size: 0.5 metres Location(s) found: UK, Germany, China  Notes: Oligokyphus was a 'weasel-like' animal and had double-rooted cheek teeth. The forelimbs were held directly underneath the body. The species Oligokyphus major and Oligokyphus minor were considered by one study to represent the male and female of the the same species.
	Name: Thrinaxodon Age: 251 million years ago Period: Lower Triassic (Induan) Size: 0.5 metres Location(s) found: South Africa (Free State Province), Antarctica Notes: Thrinaxodon was a fox-sized cynodont. Pits in its skull show there were blood vessels and nerves for vibrissae (whiskers). This suggests that the animal had fur and was probably endothermic (absorbs energy in the form of heat). Thrinaxodon also had seven neck vertebrae, the same as modern mammals. It lived in burrows, or at least used them, as a specimen was found preserved in a burrow that had apparently filled during a flash flood. Its name means 'trident tooth'.
	Name: Inostrancevia Age: 245 million years ago Period: Late Permian Size: The size of a large tiger, skull 45 cm long Location(s) found: Sokolki, Malaya Severnaya (Small North) Dvina River near Archangel'sk, northern Russia Notes:Named in honour of A. Inostrantzev, a Russian geologist Represented by a skeleton of a large satire-toothed theriodont reptile. The gracile nature of the skeleton of this animal and its development of many kinds of teeth marks it as an advanced carnivorous mammal-like reptile, a therapsid. By this stage of evolution of mammal-like reptiles, the limbs are tucked more nearly under the body as in living mammals. This is in contrast to more primitive reptiles that have the upper part of the limbs projecting outward, rather than downward, thus in sprawling stance, eg. the Zone II Titanophoneus potens from Ishevo.

To save time, here are just a small handful of key stages in the fossil record demonstrating the evolutionary transition from reptiles to mammals. Most of the changes in this transition involved elaborate repackaging of an expanded brain and special sense organs, remodeling of the jaws & teeth for more efficient eating, and changes in the limbs & vertebrae related to active, legs-under-the-body locomotion.

• Pelycosaur synapsids
  Pelycosaur synapsids are the earliest known reptiles to start showing mammal traits. They are the intermediate stage between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids. Despite its distinctly lizard-like appearance Pelycosaurs possessed many traits that are more common to later mammals than true reptiles. The notable sail on their back allowed them to partially regulate body temperature. This is something cold-blooded reptiles could never do before and marks a key step in the transition to warm-bloodedness.

• Therapsids
  The numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. In the Therapsid fossil record we can see the hard palate forms, mammal teeth form, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" under the body instead of sprawled out and the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward.

• Cynodont theriodonts
  Cynodont theriodonts are very mammal-like and have highly differentiated teeth which is a classic mammalian feature. They also have distinct types of vertebrae in the vertebral column for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis and tail. Furthermore Cynodont had a mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits and walked in an upright manner on its four legs. Despite all this they still had remaining reptilian traits and also still laid eggs.

• Tritilodont theriodonts
  The skull of Tritilodont theriodonts have become more mammalian like, for example the advanced zygomatic arches, yet it still has a reptilian jaw joint.

• Ictidosaur theriodonts
  In Ictidosaur theriodonts there is a double jaw joint. Both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint are present side-by-side in its skull. This is a really stunning transitional fossil for the development of the mammalian jaw.

• Morganucodonts
  Morganucodonts are early mammals. They have a double jaw joint but now the mammalian joint is dominant and the reptilian joint bones begin to move inward. In modern mammals these are the bones that develop in the middle ear.

• Eupantotheres
  Eupantotheres begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns and officially has a mammalian jaw joint.

• Proteutherians
  The molars of Proteutherians were even more like modern mammals and these animals are considered the first unarguable "mammals."

Again, this was just a tiny list of known transitional fossils in the reptile to mammal evolution. A more complete list would include Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops haplous, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus,Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus cromptoni, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon galmani, Vincelestes neuquenianus, Pariadens kirklandi, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, and Gypsonictops. For a more in depth list of known transitional fossils in the reptile to mammal evolution please visit http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

The first know feathers were very simple and almost hair-like. They most likely were first evolved to insulate small, warm-blooded dinosaurs from the cold and heat. The first dinosaur found with feathers was called Sinosauropteryx prima, which means 'first Chinese dragon feather'. This non-flying dinosaur's skeleton was surrounded by a halo of feathers when discovered.

More complex and longer feathers that had a central shaft with barbs of equal length on either side are found on Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx. They were smaller dinosaurs that had a downy covering of feathers over most of their body and longer, more complex feathers on their arms and tails. The longer feathers were arranged like those of modern birds and may have been used to attract mates, recognize one another, warn off rivals, to balance, boost them when leaping after prey and to help cover and insulate their eggs just like birds do today.

The arm structure of modern wings originally developed for means of snatching prey, not flight. Most theropod dinosaurs (2 legged dinos) had short arms and long, fast-running legs, but some such as the Protarchaeopteryx, Velociraptor and Sinornithosaurus had developed very long arms. The arms of Sinornithosaurus were 80% of the length of its legs and were the longest arms of any known non-flying theropod. These dinosaurs had also developed a special bone in the wrist that enabled them to fold their long arms against their body, just as birds do today. This also allowed them to move their hands in a broad fan-shaped motion and to snap their long arms and grasping fingers forward to grab fleeing prey. This powerful, flapping motion has today become an important part of the flight stroke in modern birds. What started as jumping long distances to snatch prey is what eventually lead to flight.

Left is a comparison of the forelimbs. (A) Ornitholestes, a theropod dinosaur (B) Archaeopteryx (C) Sinornis (D) the wing of a modern chicken

Today we have a highly complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps. The transition can be seen in the fossils of the Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others.

If you ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates they will tell you that birds are technically considered reptiles. Using proper terminology birds are "avian dinosaurs." Like all other reptiles, birds lay eggs and have scales (feathers are produced by tissues similar to those that produce scales, and birds have scales on their feet). The soft anatomy (musculature, brain, heart, and other organs) all are fairly similar to reptiles and there are numerous skeletal resemblances between birds and other reptiles.

The first birds shared the following major skeletal characteristics with many coelurosaurian dinosaurs such as the Velociraptor:

Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands). Large orbits (eye openings in the skull). Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone). Hollow, thin-walled bones. 3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes. Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail. Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes). S-shaped curved neck. Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body. Similar eggshell microstructure. Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown. Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle. Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull. Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip). Straplike scapula (shoulder blade). Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone). Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane. Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat). Feathers.

Dolphins and Whales are marine animals but they are also mammals. They breath air, give live birth and the young feed off of their mother's milk. The reason for this is that they actually descended from land mammals about 50 million years ago. The evidence for this can be seen in the way they move, how their embryos form and more importantly in the strongly supportive fossil record.

The ancestry of whales is even visible in the way they move, even though they look like fish they don’t swim like a fish. Since mammals originally evolved on land, their spines are optimized for running, allowing for up-and-down and only little sideways motion. Fish move through the water by flexing their spine from side to side. Mammals (including whales, dolphins, seals and otters) on the other hand swim by undulating their spines up and down in the same way land mammals use their spines when running. For this reason marine mammals have horizontal tail fins while fish mostly have vertical tail fins.

Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a snout above water. The nostrils migrated upward toward the top of their head, as ancient whales spent more time immersed in the water. The fossil record even clearly documents the migration of the nostrils in the evolution of whales. Fig 1. Pakicetus
Fig 2. Rodhocetus nostrils were higher on the skull, intermediate between its ancestors and modern whales.
Fig 3. A modern gray whale can emerge from the water, inhale and re-submerge without stopping or tilting its snout to breathe.

Land mammals have ears that are great for hearing on land but are terrible for under water, yet whales have such great hearing under water. If whales did evolve from land mammals then we should be able to see the necessary changes of the middle ear in the fossil record. You know what? That's exactly what we see. As with other traits, discoveries in the fossil record of early whales demonstrate that whales acquired underwater hearing in stages. Here is a brief description of how hearing in land and marine mammals work along with its different stages of development in each fossil.

Diagram (a) is the ear of a typical modern land mammal. The EAM (external auditory meatus) is your ear hole and leads to your ear drum (TyMe). Vibrations in the ear drum caused by sounds in the air are amplified in the chain of inner ear bones (Mal, Inc & Sta). Finally the amplified vibrations are transmitted to the cochlea causing the fluids contained within to move, setting in motion thousands of "hair cells" that convert the motion to electrical signals that are sent to and read by your brain.

Underwater however, the EAM gets filled with water putting pressure on the ear drum reducing the vibrations and amplitude. Instead, the vibrations are transmitted through the bones and tissues of the head, vibrating the tympanic bone (TyBo) and by that path the inner ear bones.

Diagram (b) is the ear of Pakicetus from about 50 million years ago. It is not much different from typical land mammals but note the one special feature; the tympanic bone (TyBo) isn't connected to the periotic bone (Per) anymore, and it's actually thickened into a structure called the involucrum (Inv). Basically, the bony structure of the ear is less tightly attached to the skull and is more free to vibrate in response to sound transmitted through the tissue of the head. This makes hearing under water a little better.

Diagram (c) is the ear structure found in a group of whales called the remingtonocetids/protocetids, from 43-46 million years ago. This group includes the Ambulocetus & Rodhocetus. The ear capsule is even less strongly attached to the skull and the involucrum (Inv) is more robust and even more remote from the skull. This allows the bony structure of the ear to move even more freely becoming even more sensitive to vibrations underwater. The ear drum is reduced and conical in shape and the malleus is fused to the bone, so although the pieces are all there it's not going to be nearly as effective at capturing sound waves in air as diagram (a) or (b). Another feature is a deep groove in the mandible that indicates there was a fat pad (FaPa) in the jaw that would better transmit vibrations from the jaw bone to the ear capsule.

Diagram (d) is the ear structure of a modern whale. This is quite similar to diagram (c) but most of the structural parts are simply accentuated. The ear capsule is specialized to receive sounds transmitted through the fat pad, and has completely given up on sounds transmitted through air. The EAM (external auditory meatus) is closed off and gone yet the eardrum is still present even though it's no longer connected to the external world.

Embryo Development (cont.)
Whales don't have actual legs* or fur but they evolve from land mammals who did. During embryonic development leg extremities first occur early on then later recede. Whales also have hair at one stage during embryonic development but lose most of it later. Dolphin embryos also go through a stage where they grow hind limbs that later recede. Sometimes a feature like the hind limbs of dolphins develop but fail to later recede in the embryo and the animal ends up being born with these ancestral traits. Recently a dolphin that failed to recede its hind limbs before birth was caught off the southwestern coast of Japan. To the right is a photo courtesy of the Taiji Whale Museum.
*Whales do still have tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies

The swim bladder in fish evolved from a sac connected to the gut, allowing the fish to gulp air. In most modern fish, this connection to the gut has disappeared. In the embryonic development of these fish, the swim bladder originates as an out pocketing of the gut, and is later disconnected from the gut.

The embryos of all humans start to grow gills early in their development. The same is also true with the embryos of all other mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians since we all share a common ancestry with fish. There is a specific gene in our DNA that tells our embryo to start developing gills, but before the gills are complete another gene later kicks in telling the gills to form into various other structures. The gills on human embryos are not fully developed or used for respiration but neither are the gills of a fish embryo at that age. The gills are still actually legitimate gills, in their early stages, as the slits do establish contact between the outside and the pharynx. The early stages of development for the gills in human embryos mirrors that of fish embryos. It is not until that later gene (which got added to our DNA later in our evolutionary history) kicks in that the gill development takes a different course than that of fish.

All human embryos also go through a stage in which they have tails that are later absorbed. Sometimes however a person is born with an actual tail. Sometimes the tail is just a long flab of skin the resembles the tail and sometimes the tail has develops muscles making it a fully functional tail. Below is more information on the human tail...

True Human Tails
Do you ever wonder why we have a tail bone? For some people it causes extreme and unnecessary chronic pain known as coccydynia and it hurt terrible if we fall on it. The tail bone, aka the coccyx, dose serve a purpose as an anchor point for the surrounding muscle. But wouldn’t it be more intelligent to design an anchor that is more padded, doesn’t cause so much pain if we fall on it or one that doesn’t cause chronic pain? Regardless, the tail bone is remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans of which is degraded and eaten by our immune system before birth. In rare occasions though, some people are actually born with their tail still intact. More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Most of these are not true functional tails, they are pseudo-tails meaning it's just skin hanging from the tail bone and just look like a tail. Yet again, where is the intelligence of designing such a birth defect?

In less than one third of the well-documented causes of human tails a person is born with an actual tail. These true human tails do in fact have a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibers, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). They are covered by normal skin with hair follicles, sweat glands and sebaceous glands. These true human tails range in length from about one inch to over 9 inches long and are able to move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states. Some of these human tails have even contained cartilage and up to five well-developed articulating vertebrae which not even many mammalian tails have.

Scientists have actually discovered the tail genes inside the human genome. Humans contain both the gene to develop tails along with apoptosis (programmed cell death) that plays a significant role in removing the tail while humans are still in the embryo form. The tail genes are retained from distance ancestors to humans and apoptosis was adapted later during the course of our ancestors' evolution. If humans were design by a supposed "intelligent designer" then where is the intelligence of designing both the gene to grow tails and apoptosis to destroy it? Why not just not have the tail gene in the first place? Not to mention that sometimes apoptosis fails causing the tail gene to successfully produce a human tail

[x] Close

Permanently Covered Eyes
The Blind Mole Rat, Cave Salamander and Mexican Tetra are all blind yet their eyes are not damaged or flawed. So why are they blind? Simple, their skin covers their eyes. Unlike most creatures that have eyelids which can open and close, these little creatures have don’t have such luxuries. Their eyes are permanently encased behind a solid layer of flesh making vision impossible. Where is the intelligent design in that? That’s like a camera with a lens cap that isn’t designed to come off.

These are not primitive eyes or mere light sensitive cells. They are fully developed complex eyes just like that of any other mole, salamander or fish. The actual reason for this is that these creatures spend virtually all of their time with little to no exposure to day light. As generations have passed their eyelids evolved to completely cover the eye permanently. Since their eyes were no longer need without exposure to light they become entirely covered by skin so it's sensitivity would no longer be irritated by the dirt.

[x] Close

Flightless Beetles
There are many examples of flightless beetles, such as weevils. These beetles have perfectly formed wings that were common in past ancestors. As with other beetles they also have wing covers on their back but these flightless beetles are flightless because their wings covers are permanently fused shut, rendering the wings useless. Where is the intelligence of designing a creature with useless wings that are permanently trapped inside it's body?

[x] Close

Dandelions
Dandelions self-reproduce by means of apomixis and do not reproduce by fertilization like most other living organisms. Despite this they still have flowers and produce pollen, both of which are sexual organs used for sexual fertilization. Where is the intelligences in designing a plant the produces pollen when it has no need for pollen?

[x] Close

Dewclaws
Have you ever noticed the extra claw that appears to be sticking out the side of a dog's leg? It is called a dewclaw and almost all dogs, cats, wolves and tigers have them. What are they for? Nothing, they are a useless extra claw that is usually so high up they don’t even touch the ground when running. They almost always have very little bone or muscle structure and are far too weak structurally to be used for anything like gripping, digging or attacking. On some dogs it's so much in the way that it's surgically removed. Where is the intelligence in design a useless extra claw sticking out of animals’ leg? The actual reason this claw exists is that canines and felines don’t walk on their feet; they actually just walk on only their toes. Evolutionary ancestors to these creatures did walk on their feet and these claws were actual and useful toes and claws for these ancestors.

[x] Close

Flightless Wings
Several species of birds are flightless but still have wings. Some still use their wings for balance when running or help with swimming but others have little use of their wings. The part that makes one question the claim of an intelligent designer is that the wings retain complex structure that is specifically intended for flight and mirrors the wing anatomy of birds that are capable of flight. Commonly the reason these birds can fly is because their wings are too small in comparison to their body weight. The wings of other flightless birds like the Cassowary are visible externally only as a few long and stiff quills. Most of its wing's skeletal structure is found under the skin making the complex frame work of its wings useless. Why would an intelligent designer use the complete structure of wings from flying birds in birds where the mass majority of the wing's structure is not needed?

For the record all of the flightless birds that exist today evolved from flying birds, thus why they still retain the same wing structure.

[x] Close

True Human Tails
Do you ever wonder why we have a tail bone? For some people it causes extreme and unnecessary chronic pain known as coccydynia and it hurt terrible if we fall on it. The tail bone, aka the coccyx, dose serve a purpose as an anchor point for the surrounding muscle. But wouldn’t it be more intelligent to design an anchor that is more padded, doesn’t cause so much pain if we fall on it or one that doesn’t cause chronic pain? Regardless, the tail bone is remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans of which is degraded and eaten by our immune system before birth. In rare occasions though, some people are actually born with their tail still intact. More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Most of these are not true functional tails, they are pseudo-tails meaning it's just skin hanging from the tail bone and just look like a tail. Yet again, where is the intelligence of designing such a birth defect?

In less than one third of the well-documented causes of human tails a person is born with an actual tail. These true human tails do in fact have a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibers, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). They are covered by normal skin with hair follicles, sweat glands and sebaceous glands. These true human tails range in length from about one inch to over 9 inches long and are able to move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states. Some of these human tails have even contained cartilage and up to five well-developed articulating vertebrae which not even many mammalian tails have.

Scientists have actually discovered the tail genes inside the human genome. Humans contain both the gene to develop tails along with apoptosis (programmed cell death) that plays a significant role in removing the tail while humans are still in the embryo form. The tail genes are retained from distance ancestors to humans and apoptosis was adapted later during the course of our ancestors' evolution. If humans were design by a supposed "intelligent designer" then where is the intelligence of designing both the gene to grow tails and apoptosis to destroy it? Why not just not have the tail gene in the first place? Not to mention that sometimes apoptosis fails causing the tail gene to successfully produce a human tail

[x] Close

Embryos
The embryos of all humans contain both gills and tails, and so do the embryos of all other mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. To put it simply, all animals (humans included) have DNA that acts as blueprints when one of us are born. In the blueprints for fish there is a line of code, a gene that basically says "add gills" during the formation of the fish's embryo. These blueprints get passed on down the evolutionary chain with variations made to it. Reptiles have evolved from fish (not directly) and their DNA blueprints still contain the gene that says "add gills" but there is also a new gene that says "change gills to lungs," hence why you don’t see reptiles with gills. As DNA blueprints a changed during the course of evolution sometimes the instructions to add a feature is removed completely and sometimes it is just over turned by an added instruction that says to get rid of what the earlier instruction said.

The gills on human embryos are not fully developed or used for respiration but neither are the gills of a fish embryo at that age. The gills are still actually legitimate gills, in their early stages, as the slits do establish contact between the outside and the pharynx. Also all human embryos go through a stage in which they have tails that are later absorbed. Sometimes however a person is born with an actual tail. Sometimes the tail is just a long flab of skin the resembles the tail and sometimes the tail has develops muscles making it a fully functional tail. Click on here to learn more about true human tails. Another example is the dolphin, as most people know they are sea mammals that descended from land mammals. Similarly, dolphin embryos pass through a stage in which they have hind limbs that disappear as the embryo develops but as this case clearly shows, sometimes a dolphin is born with an actual set of hind limbs. Take a look at the photo above from the Taiji Whale Museum of a dolphin that was caught off the southwestern coast of Japan.

Why would an intelligent designer design embryos with features from various other animals only to have them later removed?

Note: Embryos of all humans, other mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles may not look exactly the same in their early stages like the exaggerated drawings by Ernst Haeckel but they do share many similar traits such as tails and gills and don’t begin to resemble their parent species until later in development.

[x] Close

Male Breast Tissue & Nipples
Where it the intelligence of designing men with nipples? For some men they may play a small role in sexual stimulation and for very few they can even lactate but for most they are useless. Besides limited to no purpose one cannot ignore the fact that they can even be dangerous as cancer can grow in both male and female breast tissue. Anyone who believes in intelligent design really needs to weigh out the reward of some sexual stimulation and insufficient lactation compared to the dangerous risks of cancer. With all the other means of sexual stimulation out there and more impressive party tricks than male lactation it is obvious that the threat of cancer is not worth it.

So why do men have breast tissue and nipples? Dose evolution try to claim that man descended from an all female species or that man originally breast feed children? No, obviously that is not the case. In actuality all of us start out with female characteristics, it is not until a later stage of fetal development that the testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. Breast tissue and nipples on males are left over from the earlier stages of our birth that were not fully removed. Why wouldn't a designer who was supposedly intelligent just have a male or female embryo from the start?

[x] Close

Small Toe
If you stop to think about it your small toes are useless. They are not needed for balance and we don't use them when walking. In parts of the world where people go barefoot most of the time it is quite common for their small toes to go missing because of an accident or disease yet their mobility is not hindered at all. What is so intelligent about having an extra and useless toe on our feet? If a designer wanted a fifth toe on each foot to mirror the five fingers on our hands it would have been far more intelligent to have made that extra toe useful and functional.

Distant ancestors to humans had more developed small toes as having a fifth digit was useful for climbing trees. Their feet served as extra hands much like that of chimpanzees. As our ancestors stopped living in trees and became bipedal our toes and feet adapted to the new life style. On the other hand, our hands are still used for gripping, hence why our little fingers have not been compromised at all.

[x] Close

Plantaris Muscle
The plantaris is a pencil-sized muscle in the back of our ankles. In humans this muscle is withered away and doesn’t even reach the toes but rather it disappears into the Achilles tendon. Sometimes it is even completely absent in people. The functionality of this muscle is so extremely limited that the loss of it has no effect. Not only is it not needed but like any muscle it can still rupture causing pain due to torn fibers or swelling. Why would a designer who was supposedly intelligent put an unneeded muscle in our ankle that resembles a withered away version of the plantaris muscle in other primates?

This muscle was useful to humans' distance ancestors and is still useful for tree climbing primates. In them the muscle is fully developed and is able to cause all five toes to flex at once which is very useful when swinging from tree to tree and grasping.

[x] Close