fossils

Darwin's theory of evolution was first inspired by the Galapagos Islands. He introduced the theory of natural selection, and is also what modern evolutionary theory is based upon. Darwin in no way used fossils for that idea.
Darwin did publish a paper on human evolution. During his trips, he encountered natives from a village in South America. The villagers were very primitive, which made him believe that civilization evolved, from a more basic, primitive state. Once again, he didn't use fossils.
Another example that supports evolution is embryology. That is, in earlier stages of the embryo forming, there are distinct similarities. It isn't due to lack of feature, but embryos of different species share the same features. A human embryo in early stages will share the same features as a fish, a chicken, a rabbit, and many others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Haeckel_drawings.jpg here's a diagram providing an example
Since Watson & Crick published their structure of the DNA, technology has developed to be able to identify DNA sequences. Humans and chimpanzees are 98.5% identical in their genome. Humans can synthesize a certain protein the chimpanzee can't, so you would assume that up to a point humans and chimpanzees went separate ways on the evolutionary chain.
The original book on evolution "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin wasn't based on fossil evidence at all. Charles Darwin himself collected many specimens from Galapagos Islands.
I'll quickly mention the Galapagos finches. There are so many different types, just concentrated in that small area. There are finches that drink blood and roll eggs off high areas to crack and eat, there are different ones that groom tortoises for food, there are others that use twigs to get wood grubs out of a tree hole. Others eat nuts. How would you explain such a variation of different species of finches in just one small area, when in the world there is not another example if not for evolution?
So yes, fossils do help us understand how evolution is applied, and to theorize where we come from. But in no way are they the underlying factor that would change the way evolution is thought of to this day. Carbon dating, a way to date how old a fossil is, and a major source of providing the chronological lineage of human evolution was created long after the theory of evolution was already well established.

 

Those fossils played a big part in human evolution. But they weren't fundamental for the actual theory of evolution. Like i mentioned before, there are other things that support evolution. More people around the world know more about fossils as evidence that support evolution than any of the other things that i've previously mentioned, so I guess that although our understanding of evolution would be the same in general, it wouldn't be as accepted world wide as it is now.
The hominid fossils however, do play an integral part in our understanding of human evolution, but the theory of evolution would still have remained without it

 

Yeah, I agree with that, but without the living specimens that Darwin encountered on the Galapagos Islands, he wouldn't have even have formulated the theory. I don't think there would be a weak or strong theory.

I don't personally know any scientist that doesn't believe in evolution, and the ones that don't believe in the theory that I know of are the "Evangelical scientists", the scientists who proposed the theory of intelligent design and intelligent falling. I'm studying science, and interact with many scientists, and they all believe in evolution. It shows in what they teach, in the things they explain, and even general conversations that pop up. I'm sure there are scientists who don't believe in the theory of evolution, but they would be the smaller group to the ones that do believe in them. Of course, I'm speaking for scientists. Not for everyone around the world.

I'll try to explain that then. According to evolution, we didn't evolve from apes. We evolved from the same ancestor. The apes have evolved, they evolved to what you see now. Humans may have lived on the same land, but not definitely on the same area. A portion of our ancestors stayed on a diet of fruit and vegetables, and lived in trees. Their descendants developed longer arms with leaner muscles. These ones evolved into apes.
Another portion of our ancestors became bipedal. The theory is, that they could see danger from further away when on the ground, and for other advantages. These ancestors also started to include meat in their diet, whether it was from scavenging or from hunting. Since meat generally has more energy in it then plants do, they were able to allocate more energy into brain development. We spend about four times more energy in brain use than gorrillas do. With bigger brains, our ancestors were than able to hunt more effectively, and think more. These ancestors were able to move to other areas without a dense cover of trees and survive, and also thrive. But I won't explain the entire human evolution, just how our ancestors differed.
So it's pretty much that a part of our ancestors found a niche in the trees, and were able to thrive in that niche. While another portion of our ancestors found a living on the ground, and their bodies changed in a way that ensured greater survival.
But I won't say that evolution explains everything.

 

Haha, thanks for the compliments!
It's just the stuff we learn at uni. Anyone who took my course could answer it. Although I don't know a thing about physics, so I couldn't help you there. Mostly biology and biochemistry.
I wonder if we actually helped mash in his/her assignment.
Yeah, we pretty much have the advantage over apes. In fact, our brain gave us the advantage over Neanderthals, who were bigger, stronger and faster, and also hominids. It were our ancestors that drove the Neanderthals to extinction. Neanderthals aren't our ancestors, but yet another branch off our evolutionary chain. And yes, you are right, apes aren't going to evolve into humans. It might be possible that they would evolve greater intelligence though, ala Planet of the Apes. Going off topic, but notice when you get goose bumps when you get cold or get scared? The theory is that when we had more hair on our bodies, goosebumps would then make the hair stand up, making us warmer, as well as a bit bigger.
Then again, the theory of human evolution would be a lot weaker without the fossils we have found. There wouldn't be as much evidence at all.
Yeah, and most of the mutations that happen to an organism are detrimental. It is rare to find something that is beneficial, but you do get them.
It is difficult to understand how life came into existence in the first place, if not for a higher being creating us. There have only been inconclusive theories about that.

 

What is your understanding of evolution? To my understanding, evolution can occur by genetic drift or natural selection, and is the change of certain traits passed on from generation.
Genetic drift is when chance influences a population so a certain trait becomes more rare or common. This trait is more random, and the trait can be beneficial or detrimental. Eventually, either that trait will die out or be within all of the population.
An example of this, called the Founder's effect, can be seen within the human population right now. Without the use of fossils.
The Amish have separated themselves from the mainstream population for their religious reasons, who apparently formed in the 16th century. Since they were originally a small group, most of the current Amish have descended from the original 200 founders. We are able to find this out because the Amish keep an exemplary family record, and have allowed people to study these records. The Amish have a much higher rate of Ellis-van Creveld syndrome, a type of dwarfism, as well as other heritable genetic disorders and an unusual distribution of blood-types. Some of the disorders are even unique to the Amish.
There have also been other studies of genetic heritability within other populations, including certain fish and other animals.
So basically, the modern theory of evolution is saying that evolution is caused by natural selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin in his 'Origins of Species' and genetic drift.
If you're talking about fossils changing our understanding of evolution, that would only apply to the theory of how animals originated, like the evolution of man. Of course, it would be impossible to know, but in my opinion the modern day theory of evolution would be relatively unchanged. Genetic drift is evident in present day studies, while there have been many examples of natural selection, more common in the Galapagos Islands.