Evidence for evolution

How certain? Can you compare it to something else that is just as certain?

Ummm. Sorry, Robin, you've lost me. Could you please explain your question?

1) A well-sorted fossil record. That is, sorted in ways that only make sense if evolution is a factor.2) Unimpeachable evidence from genetics in regards to hereditary relationships between species.3) The vastly improbable-if-it-happened-by-chance convergence between the family histories constructed from the evidence of 1 and the family histories constructed from the evidence of 2.The best scientific explanation for these things is evolution. None of the others make sense.

I'd say evolution, in general, is up there with earth-goes-round-sun.

By George, I think you've got it!The whole thing about DNA degrading and so on is a red-herring for this issue.The point is that we had this pattern of inferred relationships in the fossil record based on distance down in the record and the dating of them (which correlate remember). We see, for example, that mammals arrived fairly late. We had already concluded, for example, that all mammals were closely related at the 100 some million year mark. That primates separated from their cousins something like 40 or 50 million years ago. That the apes split off less than about 20 million years ago and so on.Now that shows that life evolved. But did it evolve by the methods put forward, originally, by Darwin?If it did then we should be able to look at the DNA of currently living animals and see some pattern of differences that match up to what we see in the fossils.That is if we and mice have been evolving separately for 100 million years then there should be more differences between selected parts of our DNA and a mouses than between our DNA and a monkey that split off half as long ago. And less difference between us and the apes which split off half as long ago as that.(all dates are very rough and off the top of my head).So we have two "clocks" to compare, the fossil "clock" and the DNA "clock". Do they agree?Here is a rough, made up thing:The 3 things are the animal, the fossil record determined time since we split off and the number of DNA differences:Mouse, 100 million years , 10,000
Lemur, 50 million years , 5,000
Ape, 20 million years , 2,000
Chimp, 5 million years , 500Now the about "chart" is wholy made up and fictious but captures the basic idea.So do the fossil dates and the DNA differences correlate at all?Well, the answer is that they do. Rather well it seems. Two things:Would I say that evolution occured as a matter of fact? Yes, absolutely.Would I say that the theory we call Neo-Darwinism is more certainly the correct explanation for how it happened that the big bang is as an explanation of how the universe got kicked started? Yes, based on how solid neo-darwinism has stood up to examination and how well it explains what we see AND how much we still have to learn about the physics behind the formation of the universe. There is a lot (a whole lot!) more room for surprises in the big bang theory than the overall principles of the ToE. (thought the details of evolutionary processes are certainly amasing).

I just wanted to know if evolution was very, very certain or just fairly probable. Other posters say there's no doubt about it.

There's no more doubt than any other scientific theory, like the kinetic theory of gases or the germ theory of disease.

But the Big Bang would not be on that level of certainty, correct?It is also a "scientific theory."

I think, Crash, that there are differences in the "certainty" of different theories. The examples you give are very, very certain (very, very, very, very even -- so close that if we weren't trying to be careful and technical in our language we would call them facts). However, the big bang is not, in my mind, as certain as they are.I would say that the ToE is closer to the germ threory or the`kenetic theory of gases in certainty.

I would agree with you on the relative certainty of the big bang. It is afterall only about half a century old and doesn't explain everything such as just why the universe is the way it is. It's very nature is also, of course, less accessible than other topics to theorize about.

And the theory of relativity? Is there much empirical evidence of that?

There is a lot of evidence for relativity. There is a satillite in orbit now looking for "frame dragging".However, it is, apparently a problem that both general realivity and quantum mechanics can't both be right.I'd put relativity between the ToE and the big bang as far as certainty goes. Perhaps somewhat over to the more certain side.

Other sciences/theories belong elsewhere.Moderation issues discussion also belong elsewhere.Adminnemooseus

---

Sorry, got dragged off a bit, little by little.

By the way what is all this "IMHO" and "IMO" and "IOW" stuff? Is that like a secret code?