Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

quote:

---

In my opinion, there is no "most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory." Most creationists have a religious rather than scientific background, so the significance of the scientific evidence is often unapparent to them.

​

--Percy

---

Not true. The science of evolution cannot be debated without addressing its underlying error of not addressing the pivotal differences between its species classifications. Nor is it a religious arguement that humans have a factor not addressed by darwin's categories - it is absolute and legitiate science to point this out, and one must address the results when this is factored in.
Otherwise, one can say also that zebras evolved from calcium particles, and disregard all other factors. But this would also mean, there is no reason for ccategorising differences.Why don't you try to nominate why birds fly and humans possess speech - with scientific coherence? You will find no assistance in darwin here.

quote:

---

Richard Dawkins writes:
If you follow the population of herring gulls westward to North America, then on around the world across Siberia and back to Europe again, you notice a curious fact. The 'herring gulls', as you move round the pole, gradually become less and less like herring gulls and more and morelike lesser black-backed gulls. At every stage aound the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their immediate neighbors in the ring to interbreed with them. Until, that is, the ends of the continuum are reached, and the ring bites itself in the tail. The herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull in Europe never interbreed, although they are linked by a continuous series of interbreeding colleagues all the way round the other side of the world.

---

Is this not an external environment impact, as opposed any ininherent traits: there is no indication here of speciation outside the bird family? Humans also exhibit the same quality when different nationalisties are osmosized.

quote:

---

adminbuzsaw

​

What you need to note in particular is the topic title which is not evidence against evolution perse, but evidence for evolution. Sometimes this topic line can be a bit puzzling, but when in doubt, please hold your peace by refraining from response. So long as your response is directly related to messages pertaining to specific evidence you're ok in assessment of that claimed evidence cited.

---

What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject?I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting. Its like nominating a million 'red' marbles by their shades of 'red' - while disregarding that one marble is 'blue' - and never seen anywhere else. It is feasable that this factor can be the most legitimate path to the premise of manifest 'differentials' debated within the evolutionary menu: if one factor stands out, and is the most powerful one - all the biological imprints have to cater to that stand out feature, and explain why it is not generic, as per all other generic differentials?

quote:

---

VACATE
I refer to the fact that elephants are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by prehensile noses

---

Tooth size variations - equatable with speech? Well - one more opine will make this Q conclusive for this thread!

quote:

---

vacate

​

but also our DNA, Bones, Brain, organs, and even trivial things such as our appearance - all these set us apart from all other animals!

---

I disagree - absolutely; variations are not intrinsic or pivotal differences. But I won't take up this issue here.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Are humans who cannot speak for whatever reason any less human?

---

If you mean a mute human, this is an exception to the rule, and not catering to the issue.

quote:

---

Could we not define any particular characteristic of any animal and say that said characteristic makes it unique and special. Surely the only reason we would think speech is so special is because it is our speciality?

​

Do other animals not communicate verbally? At what point does that become speech? (dolphins, whales, chimps etc. etc.)

---

Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech. I don't see dolphins or elephant noses being the right TICK-OFF what sets humans apart from all other life forms. Basically, I have accepted this thread's majority view, but not by agreeing in any manner whatsoever: in fact I see the reluctance to a blatant logic as a lacking, but this thread appears not inclined in a variant view of what has been accepted of darwin's classifications by skeletal and biological imprints only, and where speech is not a consideration. We must agree to disagree.

quote:

---

Yes, the issue is not really evolution per se but common descent -- and the agreement of evidence with the numbers of common ancestors as you go back through the evidence. The main problem for the "genesis model" is the disappearance of human then ape then primate then mammal etc etc as you go back in time.

​

Enjoy.

---

Start a new thread, and tell me when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras.

quote:

---

IamJoseph raised the issue of how speech developed in man as an example of a critical weakness of evolutionary theory, not as an example of convincing evidence. I think those who want to discuss the evolution of speech should go to another thread. This thread is for proposing and dissecting examples of compelling evidence for evolutionary theory.
--Percy

---

Sure I can nominate the best candidate of what constitutes the strongest evidence for evolution. Its the 'seed', quite a comprehensive term for a factor which can carry and pass on all required data. If there be any disputation of this factor, the best way is by elimination - and here a counterpart to this thread would help. How can one nominate the best candidate if they are not certain what does NOT apply. How about a thread, MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION? Its called the 'devil's deciple' principle, and it works.