What i can't understand about evolution....

Firstly, we need to define what you’re looking for. Biology, the study of life, does not exclude paleontology (in some senses, a subcategory - the study of pre-historic life). Neither can life be studied only in a vacuum that excludes its environment, and in case you hadn't noticed, that includes rocks. As we're talking about evolution here, we could try looking up "evolutionary biology", and we'd easily find things like this:

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent and descent of species, as well as their change, multiplication and diversity over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist.

---

That sounds just like the field you're looking for in your quest to understand macroevolution. So:

quote:

---

Description:
Evolutionary biology is an interdisciplinary field because it includes scientists from a wide range of both field and lab oriented disciplines. For example, it generally includes scientists who may have a specialist training in particular organisms such as mammalogy, ornithology, or herpetology, but use those organisms as case studies to answer general questions in evolution. It also generally includes paleontologists and geologists who use fossils to answer questions about the tempo and mode of evolution, as well as theoreticians in areas such as population genetics and evolutionary psychology.

---

Evolutionary biology - WikipediaOh dear. It appears that rocks and fossils are part of the science of biology, so that doesn't help us define what you really mean. So I'll do it. What you want is evidence from biology for evolution, without mention of fossils or rocks. Agreed?So I'll give you some, but it has to be sketchy, because whole books could be written on this without covering all the ground.Firstly, let's start with proviruses. These are caused when a virus genome, like that of a retrovirus, is integrated into the DNA of a host cell on the germline, and therefore passed on to the descendents of the infected individual. The effect is not always negative, and can be neutral or eventually positive, so some of these "scars" fix across populations, and are carried by entire species. We can recognize relationships between species and construct phylogenetic trees based on proviruses that have happened in common ancestors. There are so many places that these viruses can insert themselves that a common pattern of proviruses in different animals is a proof of common ancestry way beyond all reasonable doubt.In primates, the patterns of proviruses illustrate clearly that we are closely related to the other great apes, less closely to the lesser apes, even less to old world monkeys, and even further from new world monkeys. They also show ancient "scars" that are common to all those groups.So this: descends from a common ancestor with these: That’s the world’s largest and smallest primates, and it takes a lot of macroevolution to get them (and you) from a common ancestor. Proviruses are good examples in evolution/ creation debates, because they are the results of viral invasion and damage, certainly not design.Elsewhere, I think you asked for micro-organism to elephant evolution. As I mentioned above, paleontology is the study of prehistoric life, so presumably you think that this transition is historic, or will take place in the future, or something. However, leaving aside that technical point, how can we know that elephants have descended from single celled organisms?For a start, that’s what they’re made of. Elephants are complex colonies of eukaryotes.To start off evolving our elephant, we need evidence of the evolution of single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms. It's surprisingly easy to find evidence for this, because there are organisms in various intermediary stages all around us. Many singled celled species form into cooperative colonies, and some of them actually form multicellular “creatures” during their life cycles. There are some that biologists find hard to define as being definitely single celled or multicellular species. This is important, because it illustrates that stages in between being single cellular and multicellular are fully functional and can be selected for.In order for cooperative colonies (and multicellular forms) to occur, cells must evolve the ability to communicate chemically, and some of the mechanisms that these cooperative single celled species use to communicate are similar to those of our own cells. Multicellular organisms, including elephants, are in fact complex cooperative colonies of single celled organisms which have evolved into arrangements that were advantageous to them.Next time you see a slime mould, say “Hi, cousin”, because the molecular evidence in its cells’ communication mechanisms and yours illustrate the relationship!Enough for one post. Here’s a brief article on single/multi-cellular intermediates. Living transitionals - no fossils, and no rocks!Note the line:

quote:

---

Indeed, in light of recent discoveries of communication among bacteria and the importance and prevalence of bacterial biofilms, “single-celled” may turn out to be a misnomer even for these organisms.

---

We could just give them the provisional nickname of "non-fossilized transitional forms".

I figured out what you meant, but only by reading between the lines. Biology, as I pointed out, is the study of all life, and Paleontology, as the study of prehistoric life, is essentially a sub-category of biology. You're still not really making sense (and I'll explain why) with the following: Do you seriously think that paleontologists use time machines in their studies? All of paleontology (and other historical science) is done on what can be observed in the present. My point about pro-viruses was actually, in a sense, paleontology. The scars of the viral attacks are observed in the present, just as fossils are, and from these observations, we can discover the past. You can "watch and test" molecular evidence for common ancestry. Creationists have been saying that all primates came from a common ancestor for eons? We're primates, you know, and directly observable molecular and physiological evidence puts us much closer to the gorilla in my pictures above than the gorilla is to the new world monkeys pictured with it. Most creationists think that we are a separately created kind. Traditionally, they would put kind at the level of "species". More recently, many have pushed it back to the level of genus or family, but you're the first I've heard agree to putting it at the level of order (all primates).The same kind of molecular evidence that shows that the primates descended from a common ancestor works at the level of class and above. Again, presumably you mean biological evidence excluding branches of biology dealing with fossils and rocks. The answer is yes. Where shall we start? Would you like to discuss the Cytochrome C protein, for example. You can find plenty of creationist misinformation about this on the Internet, but actually, it gives a pretty good guide to the relatedness between organisms both up to and above the level of order (and above class!).Ours is identical to a chimp's, different from a dog's, more different from a lizard's, and very different from that of yeast. But there's no functional reason for this. You could put ours in a tomato plant, or the yeast's in a dog, and it would work fine. The differences are just due to random mutations over time, so the further back the common ancestry is, the more difference there's likely to be.

So, you're under the impression that evolutionary biologists are studying the future based on what they can see in the present, are you? I certainly wouldn't assume anything about what the descendents of turtles might be like in ten million years' time. There might not be any! Then your opinion is naive. We are not predicting the future of turtles, we are talking about the past. The clue is in the phrase "historical science". We can make observations in the present which give us clues to the past. My pro-virus and cytochrome C observations above, for example. Those two alone would confirm, to those who understand the evidence, that a great deal of macro-evolution has happened.An analogy often given is that of detectives investigating a murder. When the body is discovered, the event is in the past, and if there are no witnesses, then we look at things we can see in the present for clues to history. The fingerprints of a known burglar are found in the house, his DNA is found on the body and on the murder weapon lying beside it, and discarded clothes are found in his trash can with the blood of the victim on them. The jury will convict him as guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.Evolution is even clumsier at hiding the evidence than my dumb burglar. We have far more evidence for historical macro-evolution than there was for his conviction. How many paleontologists have you "nailed down", and what are you asking them for? A complete view and understanding of natural history? What makes you expect the fossil record to be complete? Do you expect a murder to have to be filmed live from four angles, and every detail known, before we convict murderers?If I were a paleontologist, I would point out to you that the many transitional forms already identified are more than enough proof for macro-evolution on their own. There's absolutely no reason why any such things should exist in a created world.You would probably consider my murderer very likely to be guilty just on the three or four lines of evidence I mentioned. How many lines do you need to consider evolution the very likely culprit of the origin of the species we see around us?I think, if you were honest, your objections to evolution are based on religious faith, and have nothing to do with the evidence at all.However, I'm prepared to discuss the things I've mentioned so far and many other lines (sans fossils, of course )

I brought up pro-viruses back on post 79 Message 79 (we're still on that title!), and claimed that they were proof of macro-evolution beyond all reasonable doubt on their own. An attempt at an evidence backed refutation of my point might be interesting. I'm happy to find some interesting papers for you on the subject, if you care to address it, and to explain in more detail myself.It's no good just asserting things like... ...because mutation has been shown to be a reliable mechanism of "healthy" (beneficial) change in many experiments. Here's an example which involves not only the selection of simple beneficial single mutations, but also a more complex process illustrating a multi-mutation characteristic, and requiring historical contingency. SOME REALLY INTERESTING BIOLOGYBut that's just an illustration of one of the ways in which evolution happens. My pro-virus point is more directly relevant to your request for evidence of macro-evolution without fossils.

I think you're having trouble with the word "evidence", seekingfirst. If you were to present me with a series of photographs, perhaps ten or fifteen, and claim that these were photos of yourself from the present back to babyhood, I would probably be able to see the resemblance step by step working backwards from the present, and accept the evidence that the little bald creature with no teeth in the earliest photo was you. However, I could claim that every photo you presented opened up the need for more missing link photos, and continue to say that, as if demanding a non-stop movie of your life as proof that you were once that creature with very little hair and no teeth.For a better analogy, let's look at how we can find out about past events by looking at the present. Further up the thread, I gave the example of a murder investigation. Once the crime has happened, if there are no witnesses, we have to look at the present in order to investigate. The fingerprints of a known burglar are found in the room, his DNA is on the corpse and the bloody knife lying beside it, and discarded clothes are found in his trash can with the victim's blood on them. A jury would convict him beyond all reasonable doubt. As with your photos, we don't need a complete film of the event.So, you want to know about the evolutionary history of man. Starting from now and working back, I'll present you with the evidence that we share a pattern of historical damage (called pro-viruses) in our genomes with the other apes that confirms beyond all reasonable doubt that we share common ancestry with them. From that, we already know that macro-evolution happens. In fact, that pattern extends to illustrate common descent amongst all primates, and goes beyond that to our relationship with other mammals.As you'll get lots of people replying to you, I'll stick to that line for now which, alone, shows that we are related by common ancestry to hundreds of other creatures, including our pretty cousin pictured below my name.My point about evidence is that we do not need the whole of natural history on film in order to convict evolution as the culprit for the origin of species.

Sure, but worse for whom? Creationists love missing links. That's what some try and do, ask for a complete fossil record, as if that's necessary in order to "prove evolution". I was pointing out that 10 or 15 photos would probably be enough to connect an adult to its baby self, so that a film isn't required, let alone photos filling gaps between the stills.That's what I meant when I said that seeker has problems with the word evidence. The pro-viruses I keep bringing up are actually better evidence for the common ancestry of all primates than the evidence I described to convict a burglar for murder above. I can think of an unlikely but possible and reasonable explanation for the evidence in that murder case (burglar finds body, searches it for money accidentally touching the weapon, then throws away his bloodstained clothes, realising he might become a suspect).With the proviruses, there's no feasible explanation other than common descent. Interestingly, about 8% of our genome is made of proviruses.I keep making the claim that I've put in italics in the hope that a creationist will challenge me on it. No takers yet, and I'm not surprised. Does God create via viral infection, I wonder? Are viruses angels?

We can show you the relicts of the common ancestor in the natural world. They are in your own genome, and comparison of that genome to any other life forms (viruses excepted) shows the common ancestry. You and I are exactly that. Remotely like "this animal". The most recent common ancestor of all animals is a creature with just one genome, like us. All animals share whole sections of that creature's genome, so all are "remotely like" it. The differences are all attributable to known processes (the many different types of mutation) that still happen now, and can be observed.The examination of the genomes of extant creatures can only be explained by common ancestry, or by some kind of omphalism (like an intelligent designer who was deliberately trying to make it look that way, including going to the lengths of putting common damage in the genomes of closely related genera in the same pattern).The common ancestor is a relatively simple self-replicating organism that mutates occasionally. A varied and ever changing environment, natural selection and genetic drift do the rest. There is nothing special about this ancestral animal. Seed a barren but hospitable planet with one of our modern micro-organisms and you could get a similar result.A large genome is not required. Duplication and mutation on duplicated genes can produce increased genomic complexity, and unrequired material can be eliminated by deletion.To those who understand the molecular evidence, macro-evolution and common ancestry are the only reasonable explanations for what we see. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

As an atheist, I can back you up on this. Neither biological evolution nor abiogenesis tell us anything about whether or not this universe was created by a god. Only those who think that gods must necessarily be incapable of creating universes in which such things could (or would inevitably) happen would believe this. I'm not an atheist because of biology at all, and there's nothing I know of in science that contradicts the possibility of gods.Interestingly, one of the most popular arguments put forward by more sophisticated theists is the "fine tuning" one. Recently, I saw a YEC on another board list the "fine tuning" of the universe as one of his points in evidence for creation. I laughed, because virtually all the arguments from personal incredulity and false probability arguments that creationists use against biology imply that the universe is anything but fine tuned for life. Without going into the arguments against fine tuning, I would have thought that abiogenesis and evolution as feasible natural processes would be used by theists to support the hypothesis.The nature of the universe is indeed ideal for life.