Evidence for evolution

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.

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

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.

For one thing, that living things are made out of the same things as non-living things, and moreover, are constantly incorporating non-living things into their life processes. Much as a single Lego remains the same whether or not it's in a model of a rocket ship or a castle, matter seems to care not a whit whether it's part of a living thing or something non-living.

How is that not persuasive? You asked for evidence that living things came from non-living things, and I pointd out that you observe living things turning non-living things into living things universally and constantly. And you don't find that persuasive?Well, so what's your big idea, smartypants? What's so different about living things and non-living things that, despite all indications to the contrary, they can't be made from the same matter? The lack of some hitherto-undetected "vital force"? Good luck with that.

No.In the same way that you can construct genetic inheritance trees from, say, genetic samples from members of your family, you can construct inheritance trees for members of different species. It's a process called "molecular phylogenetics" and it's the study of the inheritance trees developed from genetic information.It's not just a matter of finding shared genes between two individuals. The degree to which a number of individuals share genes with other individuals, and not with others, and the genes that they do or don't share, can be used to construct these family trees.And when we do construct these family trees, relying on nothing but the genetic information, we find that they match up quite well with the family trees that the guys studying the fossils come up with, even though we were all working independantly. That's exactly the opposite of what we would expect if evolution was not a fairly accurate history of life on Earth.

I'm answering your question. You asked what the evidence was that life can come from non-life. Well, we observe it every instant of every day. How is that not evidence?If you don't like the answer, maybe you need to rephrase your question.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-14-2004 11:22 PM

They match up so well that the probability that they do so by chance is mathematically infintesimal. Where they don't match, it's usually because the fossil guys got it wrong; after all fossils don't tell you who they're related to, you have to infer it from stratiography and morphology. Sometimes they infer incorrectly.At any rate, they match so well that it's obvious that there's really something to the proposed evolutionary history; that it's not all made up. Much as if you got on one scale that returned 150 lbs, and then got on a pan balance that returned 150 lbs, you can be pretty sure that you weigh about 150 lbs, because the odds of both of those different measuring tools giving you the same result in error is pretty low.

It means that living things take mineral matter, like elements from the soil, and convert them into their own structure. You might consume a dead animal, and that matter becomes a part of you.Really, I don't know how I can explain it any better than that. If this isn't clear to you yet then I'm not sure how it can get any clearer.

Huh? Let's try a different tack. You probably weigh somewhere between 100 and 200 lbs, but when you were born, you only weighed between 6 and 10 lbs. So where did all that you come from?We're talking about more than chemicals dissolving into your bloodstream. We're talking about the fact that you - a living thing - are made out of things that, at one point, were not alive. The evidence that it did is the observation that it does.I don't understand your objections to that evidence.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-15-2004 12:06 AM

No, you don't ask simple questions.You ask simplistic questions, and when you don't like the answers, you refuse to say why, but simply dismiss them.Open your own mind before you accuse ours of being closed. Then maybe you need to work on your writing. Honestly it's not easy to determine exactly what you mean most of the time. Question away. We're happy to answer. But the flip side of that is that you need to show a little more respect when we go to the trouble of answering you. If you don't get the answer you expect you need to tell us why. And you need to consider that maybe you phrased the question wrong.

1) First there was non-life.2) Later there was life.3) Life and non-life are made out of the same stuff.Ergo: Non-life became life. This conclusion is reinforced when livings things turn non-living matter into living matter.I've only told you this about 4 times now, and every time you dismiss me and ask the question again. Exactly what about the answer do you find insufficient, already?

Since life is made out of non-life, that doesn't seem like a realistic possibility.

I think that Robin keeps looking for the one single "proof" of evolution, without realizing that scientific theories explain patterns of evidence, and are not "proven" by single examples. We're not going to be able to show you one single example that you can't handwave away, Robin. But the only way you'll be able to explain all the examples we could give you, at the same time, is through evolution.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-15-2004 01:33 PM

In my wife's literature search for her research, she uncovered an article (I'll dig up the biblography if anyone really wants) where phylogenetics were done on a series of beetle populations in the Canary Islands, to determine from their molecular clocks the order in which the beetles colonized the islands.What they discovered was that, when they compared that order to the order of the geologic formation of the islands from radiometric dating and other evidences, they matched. Both molecular phylogenetics and geochronology corraborated, in one swift stroke.