Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

[~Agnostic~]

Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

 

In your own words please. I prefer if you do not provide lengthy links. If you wish to quote something from another source, please reprint just a brief portion here in this thread, and interpret it for me in your own words. Like just a paragraph or two versus pages and pages. Otherwise I may not understand it.

 

Thank you.

[RyanJ]

Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

 

1) it makes perfect sence. The best adapted at something survive. This measn that bad genes are lost gd ones remain.

2) It has evidence in the fossil reacord showing progressive development of a lifeform over time.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[bascule]

Evolution is the grand unified theory of biology. It's a simple explanation for how everything we've observed in the biological sciences came to be.

 

Physicists would kill for such a simple explanation that explains everything we've observed in the realm of physical phenomena.

 

Furthermore human sociotechnological evolution (i.e. memetic evolution) follows very similar laws.

 

Daniel Dennett explains consciousness in a way that parallels human sociotechnological evolution. Consciousness, fundamentally, works on very similar principles to natural selection (i.e. phenomenological objects "evolve" through the collective action of specialists who analyze them and reinject "improved" versions back into the global workspace)

 

Evolution is a pattern which exists not only everywhere in nature (and possibly in the structure of the universe itself) but throughout all of human society as well, and in the very structure of our own minds.

 

I think the real question is how can you see evolution everywhere around you and not believe?

 

We haven't found the cure for AIDS yet, or the common cold, or the flu, or any RNA virus, because they evolve too fast. That is, unless you think the immunologists are "evolutionists" that care so much about protecting the evolution conspiracy that they would see human lives (and potential revenue from a permanent AIDS/rhinovirus/flu vaccine) sacrificed to the cause!

 

Yeah, that's pretty damn ludicrous...

[~Agnostic~]

1) it makes perfect sence. The best adapted at something survive. This measn that bad genes are lost gd ones remain.

Does this negate creationism? If so, then how?

 

2) It has evidence in the fossil reacord showing progressive development of a lifeform over time.

Where specifically is this evidence? And how do we know that it is interpreted properly?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

Thank you.

[~Agnostic~]

Evolution is the grand unified theory of biology. It's a simple explanation for how everything we've observed in the biological sciences came to be.

How do we know that it is correct? Might not another greater theory eventually come along? Perhaps a metaphysical one?

 

Physicists would kill for such a simple explanation that explains everything we've observed in the realm of physical phenomena.

How might metaphysics possibly come into play, if indeed they would? Are metaphysics valid as pertaining to the theory of evolution?

 

Furthermore human sociotechnological evolution (i.e. memetic evolution) follows very similar laws.

Sorry. I'm not familiar with these terms, but I'd like to learn.

 

Daniel Dennett explains consciousness in a way that parallels human sociotechnological evolution. Consciousness, fundamentally, works on very similar principles to natural selection (i.e. phenomenological objects "evolve" through the collective action of specialists who analyze them and reinject "improved" versions back into the global workspace

 

Evolution is a pattern which exists not only everywhere in nature (and possibly in the structure of the universe itself) but throughout all of human society as well, and in the very structure of our own minds.)

Is it possible that the universe or the human species may in fact devolve/degenerate at times? May evolution be routinely cycled with devolution/degeneration?

 

I think the real question is how can you see evolution everywhere around you and not believe?

I've not actually seen evolution everywhere around me. Rather, I've seen a great deal of decay and degeneration. This is partially why I ask these questions.

 

We haven't found the cure for AIDS yet, or the common cold, or the flu, or any RNA virus, because they evolve too fast. That is, unless you think the immunologists are "evolutionists" that care so much about protecting the evolution conspiracy that they would see human lives (and potential revenue from a permanent AIDS/rhinovirus/flu vaccine) sacrificed to the cause!

 

Yeah, that's pretty damn ludicrous...

It sounds like a race between the evolution of the human species and the 'evolution' of viruses.

[In My Memory]

Agnostic,

Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

 

In your own words please. I prefer if you do not provide lengthy links. If you wish to quote something from another source' date=' please reprint just a brief portion here in this thread, and interpret it for me in your own words. Like just a paragraph or two versus pages and pages. Otherwise I may not understand it.[/quote']

Basically, the basis for evolution comes down to observation: its what we actually see and have confirmed it in a lot of different ways.

 

We can use techniques of dating fossils, so that we can put those fossils on a timeline. When we do, we see slow gradual changes. Here is the change of a single species of snail:

(Source)

 

Heres one species of plankton becoming two:

(Source)

 

Here are a series of horse hind limbs that gradually form into a hoof:

(Source)

 

Here is a series from early hominid to early human:

(Source)

 

At the moment, I've been looking for a good timeline on dog and cat evolution, but I havent been able to find a good picture. There are very good fossils that show how the modern cat and modern dog are descended from the same animal called miacis.

 

We have thousands and thousands of fossils like that. Adding to fossils, we have a good amount of information on genetics; human genes are very close to chimp genes (about 95%) indicating that we are very closely related. Its the near universal similarity of genes in the animal kingdom, and even to the plant kingdom that makes a good case that all organisms have a common point of origin. The only exception of mitochondria, which are genetically distinct from everything else on the planet, those are believed to have come about independently from all other organisms.

[Sisyphus]

I don't really feel like getting involved with the general argument, but I would like to ask Agnostic what he means by "degeneration and decay." What do those words even mean in the context of evolution? Do you mean to say that species are becoming "less evolved?" If so, that indicates a misunderstanding of what evolution actually means. It's not a process for forming a "better" organism, if "better" is meant as more advanced. It does not have an end. It is merely the process by which those individuals who have more offspring pass on some of their traits to the next generation, whatever those traits might be. Therefore, whatever helps an individual survive and makes it reproduce in a given environment tends to get passed on. So really, it makes no sense to say that one organism, say, a human, is "more evolved" than another. It's just a continuous process of change that has no end. Currently, those human beings who are less intelligent are statistically more likely to have larger numbers of offspring, and so the human race is evolving to be less intelligent. There's no such thing as "degeneration."

[~Agnostic~]

Please excuse my aggressive questioning, but I like to learn. And one of the ways that I learn is by disagreeing with everything that I'm told, lolol, while desiring non-presuppositonal proofs. I'm not intending to try to make people feel stupid, as I have much to learn myself, nor do I claim to know all of the answers. So I may ask a question, and then immediately disagree with the answer I'm given as a way of intense cross-examination. This doesn't mean that I have all of the facts myself, but I'm trying intensely to locate them.

 

Agnostic' date='

 

Basically, the basis for evolution comes down to observation: its what we actually see and have confirmed it in a lot of different ways.[/quote']My concern is that observation often falls short. Is theory really enough? Many times even 'evidence' is merely subject to limited interpretation. Isn't a belief in evolution merely based on presupposition, much like many religious beliefs? In other words, if one did not begin with the presuppositional belief, then one would not have interpreted the 'evidence' to mean this or that. What's really the difference between entertaining an 'evolution theory' and a 'god theory', if any?

 

We can use techniques of dating fossils, so that we can put those fossils on a timeline.

How do we know that these dating methods are accurate?

 

When we do, we see slow gradual changes. Here is the change of a single species of snail:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/snails_work.gif

(Source)

 

Heres one species of plankton becoming two:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/radiolarian_work.gif

(Source)

These look like fine instances of 'theoretical mapping', but how do we know that these things are actually true? It's still merely presuppositional theory, is it not? If we first hold to the presuppositional theory, we will interpret the 'evidence' as confirming the validity of evolution. Similarly, if a person holds to a presuppositional theory that a god created the universe, one will then look at the 'evidence' of our planet, and they will confidently exclaim "Behold, the evidence of God!!" However, if neither of these presuppositional theories are first believed, then the 'evidence' will not drive one to the same interpreted conclusions.

 

Here are a series of horse hind limbs that gradually form into a hoof:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/horse_series_work.gif

(Source)

For example, how do I know that hind toes are not actually more evolved than hooves? Aren't toes better than hooves? Toes are more agile than hooves. What stops me from reversing the sequence of the pictures?

 

Here is a series from early hominid to early human:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

(Source)

How do we know that the sequencing of these skulls is actually accurate? If someone does not first hold to your theory of evolution, they may actually sequence the skulls in a different fashion. For example, what prevents me from placing skull E before skull D?

 

At the moment, I've been looking for a good timeline on dog and cat evolution, but I havent been able to find a good picture. There are very good fossils that show how the modern cat and modern dog are descended from the same animal called miacis.

I believe that all of the animal species (including humans) are interrelated. I just count the number of the limbs that the animal has, and I say "Ah, these are relatives". Then I may look for skin types (soft-skinned versus scaled, etc), as well as carnivore/herbivore shaped teeth, claws versus hoofs (aren't claws more evolved than hoofs? Or is it the reverse?), horns or tails, etc.

 

We have thousands and thousands of fossils like that. Adding to fossils, we have a good amount of information on genetics; human genes are very close to chimp genes (about 95%) indicating that we are very closely related. Its the near universal similarity of genes in the animal kingdom, and even to the plant kingdom that makes a good case that all organisms have a common point of origin.

These genetic similarities would clearly indicate to me that all of these related species came from the same source. But how do we know that the sourcelines are tracked correctly? For example, how do I know that apes haven't actually descended from ancient humans? Apes are far superior to humans in both physical strength and agility, and are therefore more evolved than humans in certain ways.

 

The only exception of mitochondria, which are genetically distinct from everything else on the planet, those are believed to have come about independently from all other organisms.

Or perhaps they had both originated from a more distant source. There may potentially exist greater similarities much deeper in the genetic patterns than what we have yet been able to discern via modern observation devices.

 

Again, please excuse my aggressive questioning. I will automatically disagree with someone in whatever they say (in talking theory versus personal experiences anyway), and offer a counter presupposition, just to see what hashes out and what doesn't in the long run. That's not intended to make anyone feel incompetent or anything like that, as any of my own presuppositions can also be vigorously questioned.

[imasmartgirl]

 

For example' date=' how do I know that hind toes are not actually more evolved than hooves? Aren't toes better than hooves? Toes are more agile than hooves. What stops me from reversing the sequence of the pictures? [/quote']

 

Its not that wether toes are better than hooves or vice versa. Its what best fits the creature's environment. For example, say there was a creature with toes that used them for climbing or digging, then the whole pack of them decide their environment isn't fit for survival. maybe it got too cold or ran out of food. then they move on to another area, but in this area they need more speed to survive and the digging and climbing became useless. Then after a few generations there are a few creatures that begin to form thicker toe nails that can grip the ground better to run faster and avoid predators easier. and these genes get passed on to offspring but the ones with softer toe nails are slower and get eaten. Then after thousands of generations its gotten thicker and thicker until they look like what we call hooves.

[Sisyphus]

 

My concern is that observation often falls short. Is theory really enough? Many times even 'evidence' is merely subject to limited interpretation. Isn't a belief in evolution merely based on presupposition' date=' much like many religious beliefs? In other words, if one did not begin with the presuppositional belief, then one would not have interpreted the 'evidence' to mean this or that. What's really the difference between entertaining an 'evolution theory' and a 'god theory', if any? [/quote']

 

The difference is that the theory of evolution did not start out fully formed. It started merely with simple observations of natural selection at work changing entire species to adapt to a changing environment. As more observations were accumulated, it became more and more apparent that species did not merely change but actually divide into two different species, etc., etc. It is the same with any scientific theory. Nothing is presupposed; we start with observation, not assumption. What you are implying would be analogous to saying, "We just presuppose that the moon is not made of cheese, and so naturally we make all our observations fit this supposition. But an alternative presupposition might be that it is, in which case Neil Armstrong missed out on a delicious meal."

 

How do we know that these dating methods are accurate?

 

If our knowledge of the nature of half-lives of radioactive materials was inaccurate, all of the technologies that utilize such knowledge would not work, and neither would any of the repeatable experiments confirming such knowledge. I don't know what more you could ask for.

 

For example, how do I know that hind toes are not actually more evolved than hooves? Aren't toes better than hooves? Toes are more agile than hooves. What stops me from reversing the sequence of the pictures?

 

These genetic similarities would clearly indicate to me that all of these related species came from the same source. But how do we know that the sourcelines are tracked correctly? For example, how do I know that apes haven't actually descended from ancient humans? Apes are far superior to humans in both physical strength and agility, and are therefore more evolved than humans in certain ways.

 

There's no such thing as "more evolved." Like I said in my previous post, that is a misunderstanding of natural selection. Evolution does not make organisms "better." It just makes them more capable of having surviving offspring in a given environment, which itself is changing constantly.

 

Also, "humans evolved from apes" is a misleading representation of the theory. We did not evolve from the apes that are currently around, for example. Humans and the other currently existing primates merely have a common ancestor (an ape-like one), that is much more recent than the common ancestor between, say, a human and a goldfish. But we are NOT, I repeat, NOT "more evolved" than the other primates. That statement has no meaning. We merely evolved along different paths to take advantage of different ecological niches.

[bascule]

My concern is that observation often falls short.

 

Observation alone, perhaps. We're talking observation within the context of the scientific method.

 

Is theory really enough? Many times even 'evidence' is merely subject to limited interpretation.

 

A theory must be a testable explanation of all the evidence or why it doesn't explain a particular piece of contradictory evidence.

 

Isn't a belief in evolution merely based on presupposition, much like many religious beliefs?

 

No, evolution has been observed repeatedly.

 

In other words, if one did not begin with the presuppositional belief, then one would not have interpreted the 'evidence' to mean this or that. What's really the difference between entertaining an 'evolution theory' and a 'god theory', if any?

 

Bottom line: Evolution has been observed. God has not.

 

Here's some material for you to look up and mull over before you continue this line of questioning. Kudos to lucaspa for this list.

 

This list details observed events of macroevolution (i.e. speciation):

 

General

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."

3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

 

Chromosome numbers in various species

http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

 

Speciation in Insects

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.

2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.

Lots of references in this one to other speciation.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.

4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.

5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.

34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

 

Speciation in Plants

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.

2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization

4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."

7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).

10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).

11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).

12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).

13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).

14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

 

Speciation in microorganisms

1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.

2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

 

New Genus

1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

 

Invertebrate not insect

1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.

2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

 

Vertebrate Speciation

1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414

3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992

5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have

originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle

Ages[3].

[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.

[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.

[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,

W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

 

Speciation in the Fossil Record

1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.

2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

 

Overkill

20. Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

21. Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

24. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

25. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

26. de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

27. de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

28. Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

 

42. Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

43. Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

44. Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

45. Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

46. Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

47. Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

48. Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

49. Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

50. Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

51. Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

52. Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

53. Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

54. Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

55. Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

56. Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

57. Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

58. Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

59. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

60. Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

61. McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

62. Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

63. Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

64. Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

65. Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

67. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

68. Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

69. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

70. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

71. Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

72. Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

21. Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in _Epilobium angustifolium_

(Onaagraceae)", _Evolution_ 21:713-719

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome

count, from the original stock.

23. Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection

appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.

24. Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible? Yes. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991

25. Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

26. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

27. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two methods for speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

30. Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

31. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation leading to speciation in Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

32. Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.

34. Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation examples?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.

[ydoaPs]

Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

hmmm........fossil record, genetic evidence, observed speciation....just off the top of my head

[Mokele]

We've observed evolution, both within species and speciation. We've experimentally tested evolutionary theory, both in the lab and in manipulative field studies.

 

Could it be replaced, sure. But only by "evolution version 2.0", since any new theory must take into account all observations and experimental data of the prior theory (plus any new data that lead to the rejection of the prior theory).

 

In short, because of lots and lots of evidence.

 

Mokele

[doG]

My concern is that observation often falls short. Is theory really enough? Many times even 'evidence' is merely subject to limited interpretation. Isn't a belief in evolution merely based on presupposition, much like many religious beliefs? In other words, if one did not begin with the presuppositional belief, then one would not have interpreted the 'evidence' to mean this or that. What's really the difference between entertaining an 'evolution theory' and a 'god theory', if any?

You seem to be asking for proof that evolution is more than it is. Evolution is simply a theory about the various change and adaptation of species over time. It is not necessarily a theory about the origin of life. Aside from questions like, "how did life begin?", we know that adaptive and mutative changes happen in species without doubt; it is a fact. A new flu vaccine is needed every year as a result such change; the flu evolves, no doubt about it.

 

On questions like "how did life begin?", "where did we come from?", "why are we here?", the answer is "we don't know". The theory of evolution does not claim to provide proof of any answers for such questions like some postulate. These are the questions that much of the alleged "evolution vs creation" debate boils down to. Scientists say, "we don't know", creationists say "god did it". Objectively now, which group can claim they are undoubtedly correct, the "we don't know"s or the "god did it"s?

[ydoaPs]

is it just me, or does this thread smack of the "it's only a theory. a logical explanation that fits observations and is backed by massive amounts of evidence is only as good as an inconsistant belief based on ancient mythology and must be accepted by faith. so, what's the difference?" fallacy?

[bascule]

Here is the change of a single species of snail:

 

Heres one species of plankton becoming two:

 

Here are a series of horse hind limbs that gradually form into a hoof:

 

Here is a series from early hominid to early human:

 

Holy shit those are awesome

[Mokele]

bascule, google "ring species" and see what you get.

 

Basically, they're a species whose range is split in the middle by some barrier, such as a mountain or lake, and you see gradual variations along each side of the barrier, and by the time they meet again, they're distinct species.

[bascule]

bascule' date=' google "ring species" and see what you get.

 

Basically, they're a species whose range is split in the middle by some barrier, such as a mountain or lake, and you see gradual variations along each side of the barrier, and by the time they meet again, they're distinct species.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I was reading about that in The Ancestor's Tale. Dawkins described a type of salimander which existed in a ring in California such that at either end are seperate species but there's continual mixing the entire way along the ring, so the entire thing existed at a continuum but at either end there was so much difference that they refused to mate.

 

The whole account formed part of a brilliant argument against Essentialism, at least within the context of evolution.

[~Agnostic~]

I don't really feel like getting involved with the general argument, but I would like to ask Agnostic what he means by "degeneration and decay." What do those words even mean in the context of evolution? Do you mean to say that species are becoming "less evolved?"

When I refer to degeneration, I'm referring to 'atrophy' versus adaptation. For example, is it possible for a species to become dumber, weaker, uglier, etc. if there be a lack of environmental modifiers? In other words, if a harsh environment will cause a species to adapt, will that same species devolve if placed back into a plush environment that offers no adaptive rigor? Sort of like when an athlete stops training at the gym, or a scholar ceases from their studies for many long years.

 

I may be sounding ridiculous with my ideas and questions, but I'm honestly trying to learn. I've been told bad things about evolution by religionists for many years, but then I found major problems with religious doctrines also since then. And now I just want the truth. Religionists have misrepresented evolution to me in order to debunk it.

 

If so, that indicates a misunderstanding of what evolution actually means.

Then I'm not understanding evolution properly.

 

It's not a process for forming a "better" organism, if "better" is meant as more advanced. It does not have an end. It is merely the process by which those individuals who have more offspring pass on some of their traits to the next generation, whatever those traits might be. Therefore, whatever helps an individual survive and makes it reproduce in a given environment tends to get passed on. So really, it makes no sense to say that one organism, say, a human, is "more evolved" than another. It's just a continuous process of change that has no end.

Okay. So it's all environment-specific adaptation. And some environments are harsher while others are softer.

 

Currently, those human beings who are less intelligent are statistically more likely to have larger numbers of offspring, and so the human race is evolving to be less intelligent. There's no such thing as "degeneration."

The species is simply rebalancing itself after a cyclical fashion then perhaps?

[~Agnostic~]

Its not that wether toes are better than hooves or vice versa. Its what best fits the creature's environment. For example, say there was a creature with toes that used them for climbing or digging, then the whole pack of them decide their environment isn't fit for survival. maybe it got too cold or ran out of food. then they move on to another area, but in this area they need more speed to survive and the digging and climbing became useless. Then after a few generations there are a few creatures that begin to form thicker toe nails that can grip the ground better to run faster and avoid predators easier. and these genes get passed on to offspring but the ones with softer toe nails are slower and get eaten. Then after thousands of generations its gotten thicker and thicker until they look like what we call hooves.

So then I may more accurately interpret 'evolution' as being 'environmentally-stimulated adaptation'? Is this correct? A species is not necessarily any greater than what it was before, but merely different. In an extreme sense then, a fish may 'evolve' into a bird, or a bird may 'evolve' into a fish. Wings turn into fins or vise versa. Please forgive me if I'm skewing some of the information here.

[Sisyphus]

That is basically correct, yes. Nothing is inherently superior or more evolved than anything else. Natural selection is just the tendency for those traits which lead to more children to be passed on. It's very intuitive when you think about it - nothing magic about it. In an environment where an organism doesn't need strength to rpocure food, mate, or protect its young, big muscles just become wasted resources. In our society, where intelligence has a minimum effect on survival value and no effect on ability to procure a mate, high intelligence is no advantage, because it doesn't result in more offspring. In fact, it's actually a disadvantage, evolutionarily speaking, since more intelligent people tend to find reasons NOT to have children.

[bascule]

So then I may more accurately interpret 'evolution' as being 'environmentally-stimulated adaptation'? Is this correct?

 

Sure, and consciousness is an "environmentally-stimulated analysis algorithm" (and hey, so is evolution!)

 

"more accurately"? No, I don't think so at all...

[Sisyphus]

 

"more accurately"? No' date=' I don't think so at all...[/quote']

 

Sure it is. More accurate than "the improvement of species over time towards some goal of higher-evolved, superior beings?" Of course it's more accurate.

[~Agnostic~]

The difference is that the theory of evolution did not start out fully formed. It started merely with simple observations of natural selection at work changing entire species to adapt to a changing environment. As more observations were accumulated, it became more and more apparent that species did not merely change but actually divide into two different species, etc., etc. It is the same with any scientific theory. Nothing is presupposed; we start with observation, not assumption.

It is my general belief that all knowledge which exists is first tainted by various existential presuppositions. I suggest that our 'knowledge' of the existence of physical matter is first based upon a certain level of presupposition.

 

For example: I believe the table and the chair around me to be physical. And why do I believe this? I believe this because this is what my five physical senses tell me. However, my observations nonetheless are first tainted by the presupposition of a physical universe around me. The fact is that none of my observations are purely free of presupposition. I will only come to the conclusion that there is a physical universe around me if I am willing to rely on my five senses to instruct me in this. However, my five senses may actually be off, contrary to what I have 'learned' from youth.

 

Now this line of reasoning may sound absurd to you, but I suggest that it has a basis which you simply may or may not have deeply explored. I suggest that the universe is not so physical as we may have entertained. The five senses have 'tricked' us, and there are many things which exist within the context of a multidimensional universe that our five senses have not yet existentially noticed.

 

What you are implying would be analogous to saying, "We just presuppose that the moon is not made of cheese, and so naturally we make all our observations fit this supposition. But an alternative presupposition might be that it is, in which case Neil Armstrong missed out on a delicious meal."

This is quite exactly what I am saying, except that I am not referring to green cheese. Rather, I am referring to the existence of a multidimensional universe, which upon more deeply glimpsing it's metaphysical nature, will render many of our physical 'evidences' void, or at least altered.

 

If our knowledge of the nature of half-lives of radioactive materials was inaccurate, all of the technologies that utilize such knowledge would not work, and neither would any of the repeatable experiments confirming such knowledge. I don't know what more you could ask for.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with radioactive half-lives. Are you deeming this an accurate method of longterm fossil dating?

 

There's no such thing as "more evolved." Like I said in my previous post, that is a misunderstanding of natural selection. Evolution does not make organisms "better." It just makes them more capable of having surviving offspring in a given environment, which itself is changing constantly.

Okay. This leaves a certain amount of room for the theory that human beings did not actually evolve from apes. For example, when we track back history to it's earliest recorded stages, a strange phenomenon occurs. There is a point where ancient history actually converts into mythology. And in the ancient mythologies, it was more commonly believed that both apes and humans had descended from 'celestial gods', and that both apes and humans are currently in a mere state of mortal infancy.

 

Also, "humans evolved from apes" is a misleading representation of the theory. We did not evolve from the apes that are currently around, for example. Humans and the other currently existing primates merely have a common ancestor (an ape-like one), that is much more recent than the common ancestor between, say, a human and a goldfish. But we are NOT, I repeat, NOT "more evolved" than the other primates. That statement has no meaning. We merely evolved along different paths to take advantage of different ecological niches.

It is my theory that both humans and apes are more closely descended from 'celestial gods', as is accorded in ancient mythology. This again may seem absurd to a scientist, but I nonetheless suggest that metaphysical advancements will make these things more clear to our species in the future, thereby rendering our current interpretations of various 'evidences' null and void, or at least altered.

 

I could go on further, but I first wish to ascertain if we are communicating at this point. Does any of this make sense to you thus far? I'm delving into metaphysical realms to be sure. I'm not attempting to be condescending, and I may even sound naive. I'm simply not aware if you value or have explored some of these other realms.

[bascule]

For example: I believe the table and the chair around me to be physical. And why do I believe this? I believe this because this is what my five physical senses tell me.

 

It's also because it's logically consistent with everything you've ever experienced.

 

However, my observations nonetheless are first tainted by the presupposition of a physical universe around me. The fact is that none of my observations are purely free of presupposition. I will only come to the conclusion that there is a physical universe around me if I am willing to rely on my five senses to instruct me in this. However, my five senses may actually be off, contrary to what I have 'learned' from youth.

 

Yay, Kantian Empiricism. I really hate Kant.

 

You know, it's the associations you make that are important, not the sensory data itself.

 

Logical inconsistencies in sensory data would serve as evidence that you are being deceived by your senses. If you haven't experienced any, I think any presupposition of deception is greatly outweighed by the logical consistency of the universe.

 

Now this line of reasoning may sound absurd to you

 

Yes

 

but I suggest that it has a basis which you simply may or may not have deeply explored.

 

No, I just think you don't have a healthy respect for the logical consistency of the universe.

 

I suggest that the universe is not so physical as we may have entertained.

 

Evidence?

 

The five senses have 'tricked' us

 

Evidence?

 

and there are many things which exist within the context of a multidimensional universe that our five senses have not yet existentially noticed.

 

Possibly, the string theorists say something to this effect.

 

Rather, I am referring to the existence of a multidimensional universe, which upon more deeply glimpsing it's metaphysical nature, will render many of our physical 'evidences' void, or at least altered.

 

Have you actually read anything about string theory? Probably not. So this is all just bullshit.

 

There is a point where ancient history actually converts into mythology. And in the ancient mythologies, it was more commonly believed that both apes and humans had descended from 'celestial gods', and that both apes and humans are currently in a mere state of mortal infancy.

 

Yeah, early humans were pretty ****ing stupid.

 

It is my theory that both humans and apes are more closely descended from 'celestial gods', as is accorded in ancient mythology.

 

Your theory? Maybe in the Michael Behe definition which says that astrology is a theory.

 

Your theory must be an explanation built around some kind of evidence. String theory, for example, explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces, something which you can verify experimentally by standing up and noting how powerless gravity is to pull you down against the massive strength of the electromagnetic and strong force connections within your body. Of course we've verified the same thing through countless scientific experiments which have been able to gauge the exact strengths of the four forces relative to each other.

 

This again may seem absurd to a scientist

 

Obviously.

 

but I nonetheless suggest that metaphysical advancements will make these things more clear to our species in the future

 

Science has made the world more clear to our species than any other investigative approach.

 

thereby rendering our current interpretations of various 'evidences' null and void, or at least altered.

 

Uh huh. So you're saying that you think there's some metaphysical bullshit which can explain the universe more accurately than science, eh?

 

That will show us that the entire universe is just an elaborate deception!

 

I could go on further, but I first wish to ascertain if we are communicating at this point.

 

No.

 

Does any of this make sense to you thus far?

 

Absolutely not. It smells like male bovie excriment.

 

I'm delving into metaphysical realms to be sure. I'm not attempting to be condescending, and I may even sound naive. I'm simply not aware if you value or have explored some of these other realms.

 

The only people you're going to find receptive to these ideas aren't going to be scientifically minded, I can tell you that much.