"Best" evidence for evolution.

Welcome to the fray, wardog25.First some tips (as I'm gonna go long on my answer):type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: For other formatting tips see Posting TipsNow to the question: I'll start off with some definition of what we are talking about ... to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In the science of evolutionary biology there are two (2) basic processes:

1. the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
2. the reproductive isolation of daughter populations from the parent populations or other daughter populations.

The first is a basic definition of "evolution" (the process that is the subject of the theory), and it is similar to other definitions used, including Darwin's original formulation ("Descent with Modification") and what is often called the genetic definition (the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time). It is also similar to what is used to teach the science of evolutionary biology at the university level.The second is a basic definition of "speciation" where descendant populations become genetically dissimilar with isolation as time passes due to the process of evolution operating in different ecologies and through different sets of new mutations\traits that arise in populations of otherwise similar organisms, and because of the lack of sharing of those new mutations\traits with the other populations.Each of these processes operate through several mechanisms, some shared some not. Natural selection is one such process, and the one that Darwin recognized as being able to cause descent with modification. Ecological changes are also a mechanism, as evolution is a response system, and populations of organisms will respond to different ecologies with different "fitness" selection.Darwin's insight was that these simple processes were sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it

• from life on earth today,
• from history (accounts of now extinct life),
• from prehistory (cave paintings and other archeological artifacts),
• from the fossil record (the natural history of life that has lived on earth in the past) and
• from the genetic record (although he did not know about genes he figured out that there was "a" mechanism that transmitted hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and that populations were related by common ancestry, genetics has just given us better information on what the various mechanisms are and how we can determine the common ancestry history from the evidence in the genes).

This is what the theory of evolution is (as opposed to the process and the science):(removed material repeated on another thread see Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity) This can be tested against the diversity of life: is there any evidence from the vast record of diversity of life that cannot be explained by these processes? 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.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity, structureEdited by RAZD, : reduced content also posted elsewhere

---

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) • • •

I guess that's NOT a potm nomination ... curiously the subtitle was intentionally chosen to alleviate that problem. I've edited to make this more evident in the post. And yet even the "huge amount" of evidence presented in that book is less by orders of magnetude than is shown by the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record, and from the genetic record.Darwin did not include all the evidence he had observed that lead him to his conclusions. The evidence, observations and conclusions of Wallace are not included in that book. Nor did Darwin include all the mechanisms whereby change occurs or is selected, things that were not known then, but have been discovered since. Nor did (could) Darwin include the mountains of fossil and genetic information we have discovered since, evidence that all conforms to the pattern of descent with modification from common ancestors.Thus it is the total body of evidence that is foundational to the ongoing study of the process of evolution. But then, that is how science works.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

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) • • •

Hello again wardog25, Actually they are not "free to call it whatever they like" because then they aren't talking about the science with the terms used in the science, and thus they end up talking nonsense based on an incomplete understanding of the basics of that science.Curious isn't it - that scientists in any field get to define the terms used in the science and non-scientists don't. It's how communication works. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for further comments (and any replies). see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? - where you can tell us what you think MACROevolution is and what would be evidence for it, orsee Evolution and Increased Diversity - where we can discuss how diversity occurs and what it means. See "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? - perhaps you can answer what "kind" is when no-one else has.Once we get to some common understanding of terms, then we can move on to discussions of what will and will not occur through evolution.But this is not the thread for it. (see Message 3)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : other threads to go to

---

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) • • •

Hey percy, Always a possibility.One interpretation would be the foundation for the theory today, and that would be the evidence the theory is founded on, post synthesis. This includes the genetic science side as well as the field science side and fossils.Another interpretation would be the foundation for the theory when originally formulated, what lead Darwin to his conclusions that founded the theory. It is interesting that you referred to the link with breeding: To my mind, it was not just that this was a parallel process, but that Darwin's insight, his epiphany, his inspiration, the realization that took it to a level above and beyond the other scientists at the time (including Wallace), was that this process did not just apply to some organisms some times, that it was more than just a mechanism that could explain some of the evidence, but that it could explain all of the evidence. He realized that descent with modification, from common ancestors, through the process of variation and selection, could explain the diversity of life known at the time.When we look at the scientific process we start with evidence and observations, from those observations and evidence we draw conclusions and formulate several hypotheses, then we combine these hypotheses into an inclusive theory that (hopefully) explains all the evidence and is concordant with all the observations and conclusions, and then we test that theory by making predictions and seeing if they are correct or not.Generally, only when the predicted results are not correct do we change the theory or replace it with a new one, and then move on to the next test.But when the theory passes the prediction test it doesn't end there either, for a new prediction and a new test are generated, and generally the evidence from the previous test result is added to the previous evidence, and all the current evidence, observations, conclusions and hypothesis are reviewed in formulating a new test.Thus as time passes, and a theory keeps passing test after test after test, the amount of evidence that the theory is based on grows with each passed test.How do you interpret it?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) • • •

In Message 3 Darwinist states: To which Admin has noted: 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.

---

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) • • •

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) • • •

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) • • •

Yes, speciation is a key element for the formation of nested hierarchies, which then become the tree of life. All branches, even of major phyla, are initially just speciation events, with the diversity of life now seen being due to continued\continuous evolution within populations. After speciation there is no restriction for daughter species to remain similar, and thus we see increased difference over generations after speciation as daughter populations continue to evolve to suit their ecologies.Speciation is also an observed phenomena, a documented fact, in modern life. All one needs to do is google
. observed speciation events . . . .
to see many examples documented. AiG even agrees that speciation has been observed, the evidence that this is an observed fact is so overwhelming that even paid\hired deniers cannot deny it. Curiously this topic is not about creationism or what various interpretations of the bible involve, but purely about the evidence FOR evolution. Nor is this a thread for discussion of the evidence, or of perceived challenges to the theory. Perhaps you would like to start a topic on this.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : format

---

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) • • •

See Too Many Flaws with Evolution

---

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) • • •

See Message 67 to discuss.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) • • •

My dad talks about when sweet corn first appeared on the market - the ear was about 8" long and the kernals were in paired rows with gaps between them, 16 rows in 8 groups around the cob.Sweet corn - Wikipedia

quote:

---

There are several different genetic mutations responsible for various types of sweet corn. Early varieties, such as those used by American Indians, were the result of the mutant su ("sugary") allele.[5] They contain about 5-10% sugar by weight. Another form of the same gene, the se or "sugary enhanced" allele, was responsible for so-called "Everlasting Heritage" varieties, such as "Silver Queen". Varieties with the se alleles have a much longer storage life and contain 12-20% sugar.[6] Beginning in the 1950s, plant breeders at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign began developing supersweet varieties, which occur due to a mutation at another gene (the sh or "shrunken" gene).[7]

​

All of the alleles responsible for sweet corn are recessive, so it must be isolated from any field corn varieties that release pollen at the same time; the endosperm develops from genes from both parents, and heterozygous kernels will be tough and starchy.

---

Probably one of those supersweets.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : wiki

---

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) • • •

You have already raised this argument on two other threads, and you have been shown the errors in your thinking.Repeating this on another thread won't make your argument any more persuasive or valid, it just shows that you are incapable of recognizing that you are wrong.I had hoped you would be more than a one-trick pony ... sighEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

It is important to differentiate between the process of evolution, which is real, observed, fact, and the theory of evolution, which has been tested thousands of times and validated by the absence of negative (falsification) data. The theory of evolution is accepted as the best explanation of life as we know it, from the world around us, from historical information, genetic information and fossil information. In science 'theories' are never proven -- indeed the word "proof" is very rarely used -- however they can be disproven (falsified) by contradictory evidence, but the best they can achieve towards "proof" of a concept is increased confidence and acceptance based on passing more and more prediction tests. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. ... and it is a FACT that this has been observed to occur in virtually every living species ... and this is often called "microevolution."The theoretical evolution of humans (Homo sapiens) as a species is no different than the theoretical evolution of all other species, and this involves what is called "macroevolution" by scientists -- the effects of microevolution over multiple generations. Such macroevolution falls into two categories:

1. The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and this multi-generation process is fully explained by the process of evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting the whole breeding population.
   ​
2. The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and this multi-generational process is fully explained by the process of evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting two or more separated breeding populations with different results over time, becoming more different with each passing generation.

Thus there are two long term process in macroevolution -- linear evolution that affects the whole breeding population, sometimes call phyletic speciation, and divergent evolution that divides the original breeding population into two or more isolated breeding populations, sometimes called divergent speciation. The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis (phyletic speciation), and the process of cladogenesis (divergent speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.Thus this theory immediately makes two testable predictions:

• Species will change over time, eventually appearing different than their ancestors, and
• Species will divide in a pattern that forms nested hierarchies.

The first prediction is very easily tested by direct observation, and as noted above, the process of evolution has been observed in virtually every living species, so this prediction has been validated.The second prediction is also easily tested -- look at the genetic information for divergent speciation and look at the fossil information for divergent speciation, compare the results to see if they agree.In that regard here are some phylogenic trees that have been tested in this manner:The primate phylogenic tree: Note that the ancestors of apes (including humans) separated from the ancestors of monkeys some 25 million years ago (before "monkeys" and "humans" existed); the ancestors of chimps and humans divided about 7 million years ago (before Pan troglodytes\paniscus, the two modern chimp species, and Homo sapiens\neaderthalus, two recent human species, existed).We can "zoom in" on this simplified tree to the to the "human" branch: This covers most of the 6-8 million years of hominid evolution ending in Homo sapiens (modern humans) since the common ancestor with chimps.We can also "zoom in" on the latter part of this evolution: Here we can see some occasional cross-breeding before complete speciation occurs, and when we look at just Homo sapiens we can see divergence with occasional cross-breeding in the whole population: Thus we see the formation of nested hierarchies in the human ancestral lineage. But more than that, we see a transition period before reproductive isolation is complete, where interbreeding can occur and did on occasion during this period. This would also be predicted by evolution as further evidence of the splitting of a breeding population into two (or more) sister populations, as opposed to de novo creation of new species or completely independent evolution.In most cases the tendency for interbreeding would become reduced as visible\behavioral differences occur, as mates would not be as appealing from the other sub-population. We can see this very tendency in human populations today, where we are all one species and can theoretically interbreed with any other sub-population shown on the last picture, but by and large choose to breed within our "cultural" sub-population.We can see similar evidence of reduced interbreeding behavior in the Asian Greenish Warblers, a ring species, where breeding occurs around the ring, but not at the point where the ends meet due to perceived differences in coloration and mating calls.We can also see this period of transition between initial division and complete reproductive isolation in horses, donkeys, and zebras.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added at endEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : added examplesEdited by RAZD, : more clrtyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Adding to the mix on recent human evolution and mixing\interbreeding with neanderthals:Oldest Human DNA Reveals Mysterious Branch of Humanity | Live Science

quote:

---

Oldest Human DNA Reveals Mysterious Branch of Humanity

​

The oldest known human DNA found yet reveals human evolution was even more confusing than thought, researchers say.

​

The DNA, which dates back some 400,000 years, may belong to an unknown human ancestor, say scientists. These new findings could shed light on a mysterious extinct branch of humanity known as Denisovans, who were close relatives of Neanderthals, scientists added.

​

Genetic analysis suggests the ancestors of modern humans interbred with both these extinct lineages. Neanderthal DNA makes up 1 to 4 percent of modern Eurasian genomes, and Denisovan DNA makes up 4 to 6 percent of modern New Guinean and Bougainville Islander genomes in the Melanesian islands.

​

"This is the oldest human genetic material that has been sequenced so far," said study lead author Matthias Meyer, a molecular biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. ...

​

Surprisingly, the mitochondrial DNA reveals this fossil shared a common ancestor not with Neanderthals, but with Denisovans, splitting from them about 700,000 years ago. This is odd, since research currently suggests the Denisovans lived in eastern Asia, not in western Europe, where this fossil was uncovered. The only known Denisovan fossils so far are a finger bone and a molar found in Siberia. (Denisovan Gallery: Tracing the Genetics of Human Ancestors)

---

I expect some new information will or has become available since this article is a year old.Enjoy.

I would have to say that the best evidence for evolution comes from the definition of evolution: The best evidence for evolution is the fact that this is observed in virtually every generation of every living species.If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. However, if anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. Both of these processes are observed when we look at multiple generations, and this means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" (as defined and used in evolutionist biology) are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. It is tested by every new fossil, and every new DNA sequence, and this is why what Mr Jack said in Message 102 is valid: virtually everything we see is confirmation of evolution.Every living species, every fossil, every DNA sequence.Enjoy.