Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 12:13 PM
456 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,861 Year: 6,467/21,208 Month: 2,228/2,634 Week: 416/572 Day: 33/99 Hour: 3/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 31 of 106 (498922)
02-15-2009 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tanndarr
10-26-2008 9:51 AM


Bump for Darwinist
In Message 3 Darwinist states:

I would just like to know what, if any, questions remains unanswered in regards to proving that evolution occurs. Hope this helps. Cheers.

To which Admin has noted:

That's a different question than the one in your title. There are tons of unanswered questions concerning evolution, just as there are all across science. But the evidence long ago became sufficient for concluding that evolution occurs. Even before Darwin it had become obvious that evolution occurs. Lamarck proposed his "inheritance of acquired characteristics" theory to account for the observed evolution more than a half century before Darwin published Origin of Species.

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your question to something like, "What do scientists consider the conclusive evidence that evolution occurs?" And then you'll still need to state your position on the issue. This isn't a "Get your questions about evolution answered here" site. It's a debate site.

So Welcome to the fray Darwinist.

This thread was started to answer the question of what would be the best evidence for evolution, and the consensus is that the best evidence for evolution is that there is no evidence contradictory to evolution.

The conclusive evidence that evolution occurs is that evolution occurs, it is observed and thus every observed incident is a fact of evolution.

So please read this thread well before you respond.

You may also find other thread more suited to your questions. One of the best ways to search for topics where you have interest is to use google site filter

Bookmark\Favorite\Save this site (click) and then you can fill in any key words (before or) after "site:http://" and it will search this site for your key words.

I used this to find "best evidence for evolution"

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tanndarr, posted 10-26-2008 9:51 AM Tanndarr has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 32 of 106 (498926)
02-15-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


I would like to hear what people consider to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.

I don't believe there is anything I could identify as "the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution", what makes it compelling is not any individual factor but the overwhelming spread and depth of the available evidence and the startling simplicity yet astonishing explanatory power of its key feature: natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 10:21 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Jack, posted 07-25-2015 5:57 AM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 196 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 33 of 106 (498936)
02-15-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


what convinced me
I am not sure exactly what you mean by foundational.
What did it for me, and by definition was foundational to my way of thinking, was human chromosome 2 along with ERV patterns in chimps and humans. A close second is the fact that computer simulations of the idea actually work, evolved programs etc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 10:21 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 2:33 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 34 of 106 (498937)
02-15-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by shalamabobbi
02-15-2009 1:45 PM


Re: what convinced me vs foundational
I'm not sure what convinced me, as I never had any question on the matter. My education was through a science high school run by the University of Michigan where my dad taught biology. (I learned the secret handshake at 8).

I would say the foundational evidence is the evidence that convinced Darwin: that evolution is an on-going process visible in the life around you. Evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is so prevalent that there are no populations I know of where it does NOT occur (nor can I, with my limited imagination, conceive of how it would not occur). One can also readily see the effect of population isolation on the differences between related species when we look at the sometimes startling variation achieved with artificial selection.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-15-2009 1:45 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 35 of 106 (498956)
02-15-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by wardog25
10-25-2008 9:25 AM


In response to The Matt, Agobot, and maybe Huntard (depending on what aspect of genetics you were referring to):

Why is it that microevolution is so often presented as foundational to the theory of evolution when microevolution is both accepted and celebrated by creationists and evolutionists alike?

To me it seems that microevolution is just a matter of interpretation, and cannot be used as evidence for one side or the other.

No. The theory of evolution predicts the existence of "microevolution". If it was never observed, the theory of evolution would be falsified. Hence, it is evidence for the theory of evolution.

The fact that some creationists will admit that it happens doesn't stop it from being evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 9:25 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 36 of 106 (498957)
02-15-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by wardog25
10-25-2008 10:46 AM


But this is my point entirely. No species has ever been shown to change into another species /...

Yes they have.

You would know this if you'd listened to the 50% of creationists who admit this rather than the 50% of creationists who deny it. For example, according to leading creationist website AnswersInGenesis:

New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

They are right about new species being observed. They are, of course, wrong about "the creationist model": there's no such thing as "the creationist model", which is why what you're saying is completely opposed to what they're saying.

Note once again that just because some creationists admit that this evidence for evolution exists doesn't magically stop it from being evidence for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by wardog25, posted 10-25-2008 10:46 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 37 of 106 (498958)
02-15-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by wardog25
10-23-2008 10:21 AM


In the "Is it science" topic, there is a thread for best evidence for creation.

I would like to hear what people consider to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.

Genetics; paleontology; morphology; biogeography; behavioral ecology; our ability to directly witness small amounts of evolution happening over small time-scales; and various relevant results in computer science.

To this we might add the fact that creationists have spent 150 years trying to find just one piece of evidence contradicting the theory and have, so far, failed.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 10:21 AM wardog25 has not yet responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 38 of 106 (498959)
02-15-2009 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
10-24-2008 9:33 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
quote:
Note that this is how science operates: take observations, develop conclusions from those observations and then formulate a theory based on those observations and conclusions, and then test the theory.

This is where I have a complaint. How do you test the theory of evolution in a way that is meaningful? You can illustrate fruitfly genetics, mutations, perhaps even speciation, but how do you show that a whole new phylum can come from this?

In addition, a natural origin to life requires abiogenesis of life from inert materials, I know this is an entirely different subject from evolution, but BOTH abiogenisis and evolution are required for a natural explanation for the origin to life as we know it TODAY.

Otherwise, Who among us will say God created life from inert materials, but evolution did the rest? I hate to digress here, and perhaps this should be in another thread.

Edited by Engineer, : life as we know it "TODAY" includes all forms of life which had a beginning somewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2008 9:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 02-15-2009 6:30 PM Engineer has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 6:36 PM Engineer has not yet responded
 Message 41 by kuresu, posted 02-15-2009 6:37 PM Engineer has responded
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 7:54 PM Engineer has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 39 of 106 (498964)
02-15-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Engineer
02-15-2009 6:10 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
Hi, Engineer.

engineer writes:

This is where I have a complaint. How do you test the theory of evolution in a way that is meaningful? You can illustrate fruitfly genetics, mutations, perhaps even speciation, but how do you show that a whole new phylum can come from this?

Evolution is just change over time. It doesn't matter whether new phyla arise at all. So, observing a single speciation event, or even a single instance of a mutation being favored by natural selection, is irrefutable proof, not just evidence, of evolution.

Your phylum-level evolution question is a different story. For that, the fossil record, which preserves several transitional fossils that bridge the gap between phyla or other higher-level groupings (such as the latest, Schinderhannes bartelsi, which bridges the gap between arthropods on one of their possible ancestral groups), combined with the genetic pattern of nestedness that continues right across phylum borders is more than enough evidence for higher-level evolution.

Genetics is by far the most powerful tool we have, and probably contains the best evidence, but the conformity of the fossil record and the radiochronology to the genetic pattern plays a great supporting role.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 6:10 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 40 of 106 (498965)
02-15-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Engineer
02-15-2009 6:10 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
This is where I have a complaint. How do you test the theory of evolution in a way that is meaningful? You can illustrate fruitfly genetics, mutations, perhaps even speciation, but how do you show that a whole new phylum can come from this?

That it can happen is more or less obvious; a sufficient number of mutations will get you from any genome to any other genome; and so long as the changes involved are adaptive or neutral they can happen. Now, I can't think of any posited evolutionary events leading to the origin of higher taxa that is mal-adaptive, how about you?

To find out whether such changes have happened you look at morphology, genetics, the fossil record, and so forth; i.e. you compare the predictions that you can derive from your phylogenetic tree with the observations that you can make.

In addition, a natural origin to life requires abiogenesis of life from inert materials, I know this is an entirely different subject from evolution, but BOTH abiogenisis and evolution are required for a natural explanation for the origin to life as we know it.

Otherwise, Who among us will say God created life from inert materials, but evolution did the rest? I hate to digress here, and perhaps this should be in another thread.

I'm afraid it probably should, yes.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 6:10 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 41 of 106 (498967)
02-15-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Engineer
02-15-2009 6:10 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
but how do you show that a whole new phylum can come from this?

A better question might be: what would prevent the mechanisms of evolution from creating new phyla? So far I don't think we're aware of any process that would prevent mutations and natural selection from creating any new phyla, or even kingdom.

BOTH abiogenisis and evolution are required for a natural explanation for the origin to life as we know it.

Otherwise, Who among us will say God created life from inert materials, but evolution did the rest?

You say you realize that abiogenesis and evolution are different topics, yet you posit both are required for a natural explanation for the origin of life even though evolution has nothing to do with origins. Something doesn't compute.

I think it's deists who claim that god simply set the universe up and then let everything run on its own. Why can't god just simply be the person who winds up the watch and lets it run? Certainly off-topic here, but there should be a thread somewhere within the faith forums that would cover this. If not, propose one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 6:10 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 7:12 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 42 of 106 (498973)
02-15-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by kuresu
02-15-2009 6:37 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
quote:
You say you realize that abiogenesis and evolution are different topics,

yes, I already pointed that out before you did.

quote:
yet you posit both are required for a natural explanation for the origin of life even though evolution has nothing to do with origins. Something doesn't compute.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I thought I said "origin of life as we know it TODAY." That's what I meant, and I will revise the previous post. sorry.

Evolution is proposed for the "Origin of the Species", and the modern species are life as we know it today.

So, as I have already asked, does anyone here believe God started life from inert ingredients, and evolution did the rest?

Perhaps there are some people here that believe that. I am just asking? Is that ok?

Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by kuresu, posted 02-15-2009 6:37 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 7:49 PM Engineer has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 43 of 106 (498978)
02-15-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Engineer
02-15-2009 7:12 PM


Two Views Of God
So, as I have already asked, does anyone here believe God started life from inert ingredients, and evolution did the rest?

Perhaps there are some people here that believe that. I am just asking? Is that ok?

Such an opinion, while logically possible, is not popular. I don't recall seeing anyone advocate it. It would also be possible to believe that life arose naturally, and that God then had to cause the genetic changes leading to the present diversity of species, but I don't remember seeing anyone argue for that, either.

Generally, theistic views of creation tend to break down into two models: what we might call the Silly God and the Smart God.

The Silly God wishes to achieve certain ends, such as the origin of stars and planets, the origin of life, the origin of diverse species, the origin of intelligent species, and so on. Therefore, when he created the universe, he made the laws of nature such that it was absolutely impossible for these things to happen. And then he did a series of miracles, supernaturally contravening the laws that he himself had just made, in order to bring these things about.

The Smart God wishes to achieve the same results, but, being Smart, creates a universe in which they will happen, rather than a universe in which they can't happen.

Any theist whose dogma doesn't require God to be Silly in some way tends to go all in for the Smart option.

As an engineer yourself, you will understand this preference. The Silly God is like a man who designs a bicycle with square wheels, and then overcomes this deficit by carrying it around everywhere. And the creationists are like onlookers who say: "How clever he is to design a bicycle! And how strong he is to carry it around!"

But it would be smarter to design a bicycle with circular wheels ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 7:12 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 44 of 106 (498979)
02-15-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Engineer
02-15-2009 6:10 PM


Re: The Diversity of Life, as we know it, from the evidence all around us.
This is where I have a complaint. How do you test the theory of evolution in a way that is meaningful?

Great idea for a thread.

The topic of this thread is what do you think is the best evidence for evolution, and the early moderation is to keep it on that topic rather than another topic discussing evolution.

So what do you think is the best evidence FOR evolution?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 6:10 PM Engineer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 8:18 PM RAZD has responded

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 45 of 106 (498980)
02-15-2009 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
02-15-2009 7:49 PM


Re: Two Views Of God
There is also another view -- That God indeed created life form inert ingredients, but nowhere in Genesis does it say how He created life. He doesn't like doing things that others can do for themselves.

Knowing that his creation would be challenged for its existence apart from his oversight, he made life adaptable in a way you know as evolution so he wouldn't have to micromanage everything. When the primates came along the picture gets blurred here. Genesis says Adam's children married into the land of Nod. We do not know where they came from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 7:49 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017