Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

We certainly should. Maybe you could start a thread on it?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

I don't think its a disaster. If humans evolved from reptiles through a long line of random mutations, what is the problem? Evolutionists also claim that we came from single celled organisms.I think it is a good thing that in the process of answering one question the reader logically comes up with another. There is nothing about evolution that can be answered by one simple reply - just a series of questions and answers.The only reason such a question would be a disaster is if science did not have an answer to the next question. Thankfully such answers exist.

If so, could you please direct me to a reference that answers my question? Even a "Well, it mighta, kinda, coulda have happened like this" would be a start.Perhaps understanding why proponents of intelligent design have avoided using this obvious example of irreducible complexity - that mammalian milk must contain at least a couple of hundred essential nutrients for their offspring to survive to fecundity, making mammal evolution from non-milk producing reptiles a statistical challenge - would help us understand the process.

We didn't evolve from modern reptiles. In all fairness that is the defining feature of the surviving synapsids. It is supposed that other synapsids lactated too. Cynodonts for example. Just look at what the monotremes do. If we should avoid this argument, we should avoid them all. After all, we evolved from fish - but fish don't have lungs! I have never heard any reason to think that lactation could not evolve - and I've seen quite a bit of information which suggests it is perfectly feasable. See here for example.

Doddy started this thread asking how we can convince creationists that evolution is true, a valid description of how extant life came to be on this earth. Some who read my posts on this thread will probably think that I am just trying to be cute and have pulled the thread off topic. The opposite is true. My posts directly relate to Doddy's topic by giving an example of how miserably flaccid we can be in presenting our case. Modulus demonstrates this problem very nicely. In all fairness, 'surviving synapsids' and mammals are synonymous. (I think. I'm no expert here, but I understand that mammals are the only surviving taxon of the synapsids.) "It is supposed" is unfortunately the only justification that creationists see when they look for the evidence that is supposed to substantiate the theory of evolution. "Cynodonts for example" of what? There is no soft tissue remains of cynodonts or other indication that they milk fed their offspring. Remember, Doddy is looking for compelling examples that underpin evolutionary theory. Why? They are just another mammal that milk feeds its offspring. That they lay eggs is totally beside the point. There are oviparous and viviparous reptiles as well. The point is that producing milk adequate for the survival of offspring is a very complex business. Mammals do it. Reptiles don't. Yes, this is a standard 'irreducible complexity' argument, but one that anyone finding comfort in the refutation of evolutionary theory could deem to be quite compelling and conclusive. 'It is supposed' and irrelevant examples are only going to serve to solidify them in their convictions.Honestly, I am not trying to be obnoxious. It just seems to come naturally. Modulus is one of the posters I most admire on this forum. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the first step in meeting Doddy's criterion for providing convincing arguments to creationists for the theory of evolution is to stop providing anti-arguments; things like Modulus' statement: " which is really an argument against evolution.Actually, what I was looking for in my post's challenge was for someone to point out that mammary glands are modified sweat glands (or apocrine - i.e., ducted glands ); That reptiles have just such glands that serve a variety of functions (although you have to be careful when you google on "reptiles glands", which will produce many sites that erroneously state that reptiles, because they are scaled animals, have no glands); That sweat glands and reptilian apocrine glands produce a large variety of fats, proteins, and other molecules and compounds similar to those produced in milk; That there are amphibians (certain frog species, in particular) that lodge their eggs in pockets that form in their skin and once the froglets hatch they feed on a waxy nutrient exuded by apocrine glands in the frogs skin. Hopefully, someone with access to cheap labor (i. e., graduate students) can provide us with some references to these last statements. I'm far too lazy to try to track these down.For me, some of the most compelling arguments for evolution are the ones that show that many of the complex systems, like mammary glands, flagella, or what ever that seem to emerge suddenly and miraculously actually have strong antecedents in cladistic ancestors. Irreducible complexity is an illusion born of ignorance.

Yes - they are. My point was that the non-surviving synapsids may have had mammary glands, or similar. So it is not a completely unique characteristic. The sentence before should give you a clue. Let me conjoin them for you. It is supposed that other synapsids lactated too - Cynodonts for example.But you are damn right that there is no soft tissue remains of cynodonts - but there are indications that they milk fed their offspring (go to google, type in "synapsid evolution lactation". You stated that reptiles don't have mammary - but we do not know how the tetrapods we came from fed their young, for the same reason, no soft tissues. I wasn't talking to Doddy, I was responding to you that male nipples undermine evolutionary biology...or rather the explaining thereof. I was referring to the monotreme's lactation method, not their birthing method. That is to say: it is more primitive than our own. So we should avoid any argument where evolution has to have occurred. Should we avoid eyes as well? What about antibiotic resistance? But anything is then an argument against evolution if we say that the development of a new trait is an argument against evolution we are completely knackered! Yes - I hinted at that with cynodonts and monotremes. I figured you'd be able to figure out the rest yourself. Take a look at thisBut...that's what I was doing! I just figured you were intelligent enough to figure the details out. Seems you wereEdited by Modulous, : tidying it up a little

Sorry Mod, but I'm now not really inclined to use male nipples as an evidence, after reading some really wacky nonsense on AiG: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

There is no direct argument for evolution here. As pointed out, [male nipples] don’t provide the slightest indication of a phylogeny (evolutionary history), since no evolutionist believes we descended from an all-female mammal species.

---

Therefore, it's obviously not simple enough for the average creationist, if Dr Jonathan Sarfati can't comprehend it.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This is probably one of the most successful methods of convincing a creationist about evolution - convince them that their religion is not in opposition to science: evolution says nothing about God, but it no more atheistic than a recipe for cake, which also says nothing about God.However, it is not really the subject of this thread. The people I'm dealing with are usually science students, who of course are religiously motivated in part, but who should be able to be convinced with facts. Regardless of whether it's the right method to be using, this thread is about which evidence for evolution is the best, and how to present it better.Edited by Doddy, : spelling

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

I have also dealt with a poster on another board who ostensibly earned a degree in biology, but who make absurd and illogical arguments, and then insults anyone who contradicts him. He is a fanatic of a different kind, and an embarassment to science. I'd love to post a sample but it has been so long since he said anything remotely useful that it would be a hard dig to find (and that site has no real search feature).This is a different kind of ignorance that needs to be addressed: the inability to construct a valid argument.I would say that evolutionists should not use any argument that is not logically valid, but hey: that's my opinion .Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Your mention of AiG sent me to their site. It's off-topic--but there's very little museum in their new 'Creation Museum.' Have you noticed? Missing Link | Answers in Genesis {The more interesting question is, why didn't you put this message in the Ken Ham's Creation Museum, which, as I write this, is 10th on the "all topic" list. - Adminnemooseus }Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well, that's not proof of anything. Sarfati is a profession misunderstander. He will pretty much deliberately not understand anything.I do feel, though, that male nipples is not evidence for evolution. Well, maybe someone could explain how this verifies some things about evo-devo, perhaps. But it should be a problem for creationists, at least for those who have trouble accepting "spin" in lieu of cogent arguments.On the other hand, the evolution of lactation doesn't pose any significant problems for evolution, and, in fact, lactation itself fits very nicely in how evolution operates in general.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

And if a creationist says that you say: We start as female so we get nipples in case we stay that way.I wouldn't say that male nipples are particularly good evidence for evolution incidentally. However, it isn't a disaster for evolution as implied.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No. If I wanted to explain the theory of evolution to a creationist, I'd start off by explaining what the theory of evolution is. 'Cos most of 'em wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground.But the most compelling fact in favor of any theory is that there are no, zero, 0, zilch, bupkiss facts which contradict it. It's predictive and it works.

Chances are, even starting with a basic definition of evolution will meet with blank disbelief and denial ...

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

no, doesn't work.i've spent the last few years here getting at the basis of this premise, which fundamentalists do not agree with:what their religion actually says and means.

---