Evidence of Evolution

[-Demosthenes-]

There have been a lot of threads about the validity of Evolution, and well I'm going to post all the evidence that I know and from my biology texts so that there will be no confusion. I wouldn't like to over-step my bounds, but I would like to invite others to post on this thread other evidence or insights that I have missed (I hope to just cover the basics with this first post) and we could possibly use this as a reference in the future.

 

What is Evoltuion??

Evolution is the change of a population of a species over time, or if you prefer the change of alleles over time.

 

Evidence of Evolution

Fossil Record

Fossils provide a record for species that have lived in the past. Often they are in sediment layers where the deeper the layer the older the fossil. In this way scientists can see how species change over time. For example scientists have observed the change of oyster fossils (in shell size) through time on the layers of sediment. This provides conclusive evidence that species change over time.

 

Biogeography and Comparative Anantomy

Animals from different continents but similar environments are similar in structure. A very good example is the striking similarities between placental mammals (wolves, rabbits, ect.) and marsupials (Tasmanian wolves, wallaby, etc.). These species have Analogous Structures, where they have similar appendages ect. because they evolved in similar environments. This provides evidence that species evolve to their environment. Certain species also resemble each other because they evolved from a common ancestor, they have Homologous Structures. The forelimbs of cats, bars whales, and humans are all similar in how they are put together and work. This provides evidence that species evolved from common ancestors.

 

Embryology and Molecular Biology

Species that are more related have similar stages in the development of the embryo. Species that are more related share higher percentages of nucleotide and amino acid sequences of DNA than more distantly related ones. Further all living things share the same genetic code (DNA/RNA). This is strong evidence for evolution of different species through modification of ancestral genetic information.

 

 

 

 

[Chatha]

To be fair to the bible you have to map out the exact lineage of bacteria to homo sapiens, accounting for each an every organism in the morphology. Evolution is only cited, as in DNA all that stuff, but yet to be proven. I personally have never dwelled on creation or evolution, though both events are not mutually exclusive as someone had to create that first bacteria anyway, which still doesn't answer the question where does life come from

[uncool]

Err, chatha, "someone had to create that first bacteria anyway?"

Can you back that up? There have been many experiments pointing to the possibility of naturalistic abiogenesis...

-Uncool-

[Chatha]

Sounds like another unprovable western notion. What is abiogenesis? Can it be proved? Let me get my popcorn

[Kleptin]

Why is it that every time a christian gets upset over evolution, they argue in this exact format:

 

1. Argue extremely scientific details and provide technical, deliberate information against evolution in the form of attacking the macro/microevolution achilles heel.

 

2. Act cocky and arrogant because yes, evolution has it's flaws

 

3. After using more and more science to attack evolution, Come to the conclusion that just because evolution isn't 100% foolproof, everyone should go and believe that a nebulous being with indistinct powers plopped every living thing on earth in a couple days and they are all the exact same way as they used to be, and end it all with a quote from the bible, which to them is as accurate as any scientific text. Despite the fact that the bible, religion, and god, were all created by humans.

[Kleptin]

I know christians have an urge to use the "where did it come from" paradox to prove god. Answer me this, where did your god come from?

 

Advice:

Pick the lesser of two ignorances

[Chatha]

Well I am not defending anybody if you are refering to me, but here's what I have to say in defence of the Religious

 

1. Argue extremely scientific details and provide technical, deliberate information against evolution in the form of attacking the macro/microevolution achilles heel.

 

Are you kidding? Of cause anybody will argue in detail, we are talking about life here. You can't just bring any inconsistent arguement and intend to win over anybody. Have you ever seen people arguing in court? You should, its a mess

 

 

2. Act cocky and arrogant because yes, evolution has it's flaws

 

Anybody would be cocky and in fact angry by wasting their time by bringing forth ridiculous theories, much less being proud of it

 

3. After using more and more science to attack evolution, Come to the conclusion that just because evolution isn't 100% foolproof, everyone should go and believe that a nebulous being with indistinct powers plopped every living thing on earth in a couple days and they are all the exact same way as they used to be, and end it all with a quote from the bible, which to them is as accurate as any scientific text. Despite the fact that the bible, religion, and god, were all created by humans.

 

Well, I am glad you mentioned using science to attack evolution. Isn't evolution science? How feasible is something that you can use the same principles to discredit? Sounds ludacris to me. Neither side has a sound ground for people to walk on, so we choose to walk on water knowing the probability of sinking, which is the reason why some people head to church on sundays and others to laboratories.

[PhDP]

Well, I am glad you mentioned using science to attack evolution. Isn't evolution science? How feasible is something that you can use the same principles to discredit?

 

We all know our theory of evolution is'nt perfect, still, it's far from being agonising. Creationism is backed by a minority of extremely conservative "scientists", most of them do not have any credentials in biology. It's an exageration to say people are using "science" to attack evolution, they distort both theories (like the second law and thermodynamic) and the philosophy of science (by claiming evolution is'nt a fact) to attack evolution. The sad thing is, people are buying it.

[Skye]

Well, I am glad you mentioned using science to attack evolution. Isn't evolution science?

No, it's not science. Evolution is a natural history, whereas science is a form of inquiry. Evolution can be studied scientifically however.

How feasible is something that you can use the same principles to discredit?

The principles of evolution can't be used to discredit evolution (unless the principles are themselves paradoxial). Scientific study can be used to discredit evolution, of course. There would be no point in using it as a means of enquiry if it told us nothing about the the validy of what we are studying.

Sounds ludacris to me. Neither side has a sound ground for people to walk on, so we choose to walk on water knowing the probability of sinking, which is the reason why some people head to church on sundays and others to laboratories.

That's largely true. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is whether you see empirical studies as providing particularly valid answers.

[-Demosthenes-]

Whatever, I guess the thread can go where ever it wants.

Sounds like another unprovable western notion. What is abiogenesis? Can it be proved? Let me get my popcorn

It's life from non-life. Amino acids have been formed using non-organic matter from conditions similar to premordial earth (I beleive in the 1950's by a college student and it has been recreated be NASA and others), but in no way was life made from abiotic matter (non-living matter) in an experiment, although it is the most likely way (scientifically) that life got to earth.

[Sayonara]

so that there will be no confusion

How very optimistic

 

To be fair to the bible you have to map out the exact lineage of bacteria to homo sapiens, accounting for each an every organism in the morphology.

No you don't. Evolution deals with mechanisms of change, not histories of change. The special histories are a consequence of evolution, and not its fabric.

[Chatha]

No you don't. Evolution deals with mechanisms of change, not histories of change. The special histories are a consequence of evolution, and not its fabric.

 

Obviously you are not paying attention to your own grammar, we are back at square one. Skye says evolution is not science, but natural history. What kind of history is plausible with several missing links? To me its pure science since we derived the historical part from scientific study. How can you say you don't have to map out the lineage to prove to everyone that we basically evolved? It that fair to the part of creation? And does it make the whole notion plausible in the first place? As long as it concerns humans, the obligation to prove this rests on you. You might as well say the bible is true because there is good and evil in the world, just as saying evolution is true because we have DNA.

[Chatha]

Evolution theory, and why it is a theory

 

Take it that I am a computer programmer, and I live in a 4 bedroom house. You came to see me at home and upon leaving you last saw me in my bedroom. If someone asks you where in the house I would go next what will be your guess? Your best guess will be to the computer room because I am an avid computer enthusiast and have a post doctorate in the study; as in humans possess DNA. However I may actually go to the bathroom, living room, garage, yard, or kitchen next. The same scenario applies if someone asks you what room I will spend the last 24 hr of the day. So unless you are actually inside the house or possess x-ray vision, just as unless we map out the exact lineage of bacteria to man, all is speculation and is theory.

[darth tater]

As I understand evolution, it is a process whereby random genetic changes in an organism get a chance to demonstrate whether or not they (those changes) offer an advantage to the organism.

 

If, for example, squirrels were once ground dwellers only, and by some genetic quirk, one of them had the ability to climb a tree, then it is possible that that ability figured in his survival to the point that he lived longer and was able to father--or mother--more offspring, many of whom had that same ability, and after a couple of hundred years, we find that the ground dwellers have all died out and the tree climbers are still doing well.

 

Now, if that is true, can't we see evolution in action whenever a weed killer becomes ineffective? Or when a medicine becomes less effective to control an infection? Certainly we all know that microbes develop immunities to the chemicals that once controled them very nicely. Don't they develop this immunity because those few who were unaffected by the chemical in the first place were the only "breeding stock" left to propagate their kind?

 

Isn't this a form of evolution?

[Dak]

Experiment with ImprovedScanabilityText^TM number 1 please excuse the strangeness of the formatting, whilst i learn how to properly format for scan-reading.

 

Now' date=' if that is true, can't we see evolution in action whenever a weed killer becomes ineffective? Or when a medicine becomes less effective to control an infection? Certainly we all know that microbes develop immunities to the chemicals that once controled them very nicely. Don't they develop this immunity because those few who were unaffected by the chemical in the first place were the only "breeding stock" left to propagate their kind?

 

Isn't this a form of evolution?[/quote']yes. to use my favorite, HIV, for example, it can be observet to evolve within a host, and adapt to a genetic configuration which best exploits the weeknesses in the hosts immune system. if the AIDS sufferer is given anti-retroviral drugs, then the HIV will evolve to become resillient to that type of drug.

 

looking at HIV in general, the most common type of HIV -- HIV-1M -- has evolved many specific subgroups to exploit key demographics: for example, HIV-1MB is best transmitted through direct introduction into the blood stream, making it the most common type amongst IV drug users and homosexuals, as the sharing of needles involves the transfer of blood, and anal sex can tear the bowels and allow direct introduction of the semen-bourn HIV into the bloodstream; HIV-1ME has evolved to cross through kupfer cells, making it adapted to travelling to and from the vagina and the blood stream, making it adapted to be most effectively transmitted by heterosexal sex.

 

 

MRSA, the flesh eating bacteria, is another good example of a microbe evolving in responce to a change in the environment: in this case, evolving resiliensies to anti-bacterials.

 

in observable cases of micro-evolution, the cause of the adaptive change is a change in the frequensies of alleles and also, sometimes the emergence of new genes by mutation.

 

however, whilst this microevolution can be observed to cause adaptive changes within a species it has never been directly observed to create a new species.

 

at this point, someone will generally mention dogs. yes, dogs have been selectively bred (in other words, microevolution has been both artificcially forsed and documented in dogs) and this has caused gross changes within the doggy population however every single domesticated dog is the same species. the sperm from any dog could impregnate the egg of any other dog to create viable offspring (although, this can sometimes not happen without human assistance due to insurmountable size differenses (think st. bernads and poodles)).

 

so yeah, the fact that evolution can be observed does tend to lend credence to the theory of evolution but observable evolution cannot be used to 'prove' macroevolution, because it has never been directly observed to create new species, which is the aspect of the theory that usually recieves the most flack.

[Sayonara]

Obviously you are not paying attention to your own grammar, we are back at square one. Skye says evolution is not science, but natural history. What kind of history is plausible with several missing links?

Either you do not understand what I/Skye said, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it to make problems for my post. The key phrase here is "Evolution can be studied scientifically however" (Skye).

 

When I say "Evolution deals with mechanisms of change", I mean that evolutionary theory is the scientific study of changes that are due to evolutionary mechanisms. Sorry it wasn't more clear to begin with.

 

 

To me its pure science since we derived the historical part from scientific study. How can you say you don't have to map out the lineage to prove to everyone that we basically evolved?

Firstly, I did not mean to say that. What I meant was we don't have to "be fair to the bible" (whatever that means).

 

However, there actually isn't a need to map out the entire lineage. You only need to know the mechanism and conditions to extrapolate the full process. I really hate using analogies in evolution/religion discussions, but imagine you catch a bus every morning to go to work. You only see five stops, but you can be reasonably confident from the evidence that the bus completes the rest of its route when you aren't on it.

 

I suspect you are simply trying to enforce conditions you know to be impossible on to evolution to make it feel less believable. However it's a group of real-world mechanisms, and will still be there whether we believe in it or not, so you could probably spend that time better elsewhere.

 

 

It that fair to the part of creation?

What does that mean, and what does it have to do with anything?

 

 

And does it make the whole notion plausible in the first place? As long as it concerns humans, the obligation to prove this rests on you.

Not really. The information is there: take it or leave it.

 

Biologists in general don't roam forums trying to convert the heathen god-worshippers to the cult of Evolutionism, because to be quite frank their interest in convincing people of their findings extends pretty much no further than their peers and whichever academic circles they have interests in.

 

By all means contest findings that come from evolutionary theory, but at least try not to demean the hard work that has gone into in the process.

 

 

By all means You might as well say the bible is true because there is good and evil in the world, just as saying evolution is true because we have DNA.

The first would not be logically sustainable.

 

The second could be logically sustainable, only nobody in their right mind makes that extraordinarily over-simplistic claim.

[Sayonara]

Evolution theory, and why it is a theory

You should attempt to explain why that's a problem. It will be more interesting, and a lot funnier.

 

 

 

Take it that I am a computer programmer, and I live in a 4 bedroom house. You came to see me at home and upon leaving you last saw me in my bedroom. If someone asks you where in the house I would go next what will be your guess? Your best guess will be to the computer room because I am an avid computer enthusiast and have a post doctorate in the study; as in humans possess DNA. However I may actually go to the bathroom, living room, garage, yard, or kitchen next. The same scenario applies if someone asks you what room I will spend the last 24 hr of the day. So unless you are actually inside the house or possess x-ray vision, just as unless we map out the exact lineage of bacteria to man, all is speculation and is theory.

If you're hoping to unnerve or surprise any scientists, you'll fail. This is somewhat old news.

 

Have you never wondered what biostatistical analysis, confidence testing, margins of error, and so forth are used for?

 

Someone who stands outside your house imagining you to be in one room because of prior knowledge rather than observation and testing will obviously fail to model your behaviour properly - because their method is shit, not because there's a fatal flaw in all of science.

[Sayonara]

Now' date=' if that is true, can't we see evolution in action whenever a weed killer becomes ineffective? Or when a medicine becomes less effective to control an infection? Certainly we all know that microbes develop immunities to the chemicals that once controled them very nicely. Don't they develop this immunity because those few who were unaffected by the chemical in the first place were the only "breeding stock" left to propagate their kind?

 

Isn't this a form of evolution?[/quote']

Absolutely so, and the same kind of selective processes have been going on in agriculture and botany for centuries, so the creationist claim that there is no evidence for what they call macroevolution is just laughable.

[Chatha]

I suspect you are simply trying to enforce conditions you know to be impossible on to evolution to make it feel less believable

 

I agree with you but I am not trying to make the theory infeasible by stating anything personal or out of the ordinary. Do Buses not have road accidents on the way? Do they not break down on the way? Do drivers not quit? Are routes not altered from time to time? The event you cited is conditional as nobody is the creator of the universe. The subject is not even whether evolution takes place or not, but to what degree(bus stop)?

[darth tater]

Absolutely so, and the same kind of selective processes have been going on in agriculture and botany for centuries, so the creationist[/u'] claim that there is no evidence for what they call macroevolution is just laughable.

 

I think there are creationists who believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Isn't it a mistake to paint all creationists with the same brush?

[Chatha]

Have you never wondered what biostatistical analysis, confidence testing, margins of error, and so forth are used for?

 

Okay you are stating the obvious and starting to be assinine. We know about all the hoopla and jargon, but why is it that this same hoopla and jargon you cite proudly can't map out the exact lineage of specie changing to another specie. Why?

[Dak]

I think there are creationists who believe in the theory of evolution.

 

Isn't it a mistake to paint all creationists with the same brush?

please dont start that again. just accept that the usage of the word 'creationist' on this site is slightly different than the usage that your used to, and leave it at that.

[Chatha]

Okay this is what Sayonara is saying

 

The bible is true because we have evil and good. We know we sin, its everywhere, we sin against the people(justice). The consequences of sin is punishment and reward of good is wages, hence the bible is true. A place called jerusalem exists, with even a place where Jesus was born, hence the bible is true. Jesus has promised he will return, hence the bible has to be true. The bible has survived hundreds of years, hence it has to be true.

 

Absolutely so, and the same kind of selective processes have been going on in agriculture and botany for centuries, so the creationist claim that there is no evidence for what they call macroevolution is just laughable

 

Well, to my understanding I am not demoting science, I am a chemistry student myself. I believe the selective breeding you are talking about still remains to a singular specie and does not produce a new one, at least not naturaly. One of this days scientists will mate a cat with a dog by some synthetic process all in the name of trying to prove that we evolved from bacteria. Okay assuming we indeed came from single celled organisms since we are multi-celled, how did cell organs know that coming together will make a cell? We are back at square one. which still doesn't answer where life comes from

[Chatha]

If the smallest unit of life is the cell, evolutionists have a case. However in mechanics the smallest unit, once thought to be the atom is now said to be string-like elements. Nevertheless this string like elements are a sub-set of the cell, so how did these particles know that combining in such configuration will result in a cell organ and eventually a cell? we are back at square one. How did animo acid and other back bones of the cell originate, much less form a cell? Was it by selective process? I don't even want to go there. Its like taking a group of people and stating that the group is a collective sequece of a single person, talk about stating the obvious. But like every other group they come together for reasons.

[Dak]

why not? evolution isnt unique to living things. ideas, methods, bacteria, viruses, forums, humans, desighns, all can evolve under the right circumstances. its entirely believable that micelles full of amino-acids and a few nucleotides could evolve, eventually crossing the fuzzy border from non-life into life.