Evidence for evolution

There is, in chat rooms, an endless series of "secret codes" IMHO -- in my humble opinion
IOW -- in other words
IMO -- in my opinion
IIRC -- if I recall correctlyThere are second nature after awhileAround here we also us OP for opening post, OT for off topic, and ABE for added by edit.

RTFM It is a hangover from the days of ttys and acoustic modems. Back then it was really nice to have as many shorthand ways of saying things as we could find.Many still get used. I had a habit over the years of naming program attempts that didn't quite work with an NDG extension. That way others that came across the code understood intuitively that it was no damn good.While we are off topic is there anyone else here who had to interface with a computer over a genuine teletype and acoustic modem?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OMG! yes, but fortunately only for a short bit.Now let's get back on topic!!! The mouse is watching.

The one that roars?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, the chocolate one

IMHO--IOW, IMO, based on what I have heard here (BOWIHHH), TOE is a ND (no-doubter). IMHO.

LOL

Need I track down AdminAsgara, with her whips and chains?Topic please.Adminnemooseus

Weeeell, I'd say the fact that life has a history, and has changed over time is about as solid a fact as, say, the sun rising tomorrow. Descent with modification from a common ancestor is a little less a sure bet, primarily because it's very difficult to tell whether the fossil we're looking at is an ancestor or a cousin, so that bit although pretty darn sure is maybe not a total "fact". How all that played out in detail, however, remains an arguable question.

IMHO, that life has a history and has changed over time is not exactly TOE.

Could you give an example?

Which is exactly what Quetzal was saying in:

quote:

---

Weeeell, I'd say the fact that life has a history, and has changed over time is about as solid a fact as, say, the sun rising tomorrow. Descent with modification from a common ancestor is a little less a sure bet, primarily because it's very difficult to tell whether the fossil we're looking at is an ancestor or a cousin, so that bit although pretty darn sure is maybe not a total "fact". How all that played out in detail, however, remains an arguable question.

---

Notice there are two parts to his statment. One a fact, that life has a history and the other about how it got that way. The second is his reference to the ToE.

Of what, exactly? Two species that we know are related via genetics? What do you want an example of? I was referring to all of the genetic data, not just some of it, so I can hardly give you a single example of everything.A single example, in fact, would be fairly useless. You have to take all the genetic data into account. When that is done, the ony single theory that explains all the genetic data is evolution.

That may be true for nuclear DNA, but I thought that there was isolated chloroplast DNA from 13 million years ago?"Chloroplast DNA sequence from a Miocene Magnolia species" by E.M. Goldenberg et al. April 12 1990 edition of Nature. As referenced in "Magnolias from Moscow" by Stephen Jay Gould, _Dinosaur in a Haystack_, 1995.They did comparisons between genes in a chloroplast from two species of 13 million year old trees and two modern ones (one pair was close relatives, the other were the same species) and got, of course, quite close results- the one for the same species coded exactly the same amino acid sequence, though there were several silent substitutions in the sequence.Or has recent research cast doubt on that find?Chris Manteuffel

Thanks Nosey. That's what I get for trying to be clever...Any questions, Robin?