Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

(Stupid topic title didn't work - Admin, can you fix? The subject line was supposed to be in the title.) {Done 4/29/03 - Adminnemooseus}This thread is yet another no-doubt vain attempt to get booboo to back up an assertion and/or follow through with yet another one of his challenges (from Why Inerrancy thread). Since I don't actually expect booboo to respond (he hasn't responded to a single post of mine yet) - you know what? I'm going to agree with him here - or at least his implication. There is NO one, single, irrefutable, powerful proof of evolution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.On the other hand, there are dozens if not hundreds of different lines of evidence from a myriad of different disciplines that, taken in toto, provide sufficient evidence that to deny the fact of organic evolution would be tantamount to denying the existence of light or gravity.I thought that, in the absence of anything substantive from booboo, it might be interesting to poll the forum to see what we can come up with as a list of lines of evidence which we feel are the most compelling. Maybe it could be added as a FAQ to the site, or something. Not specific cases (such as a particular transitional fossil or the evolution of an antifreeze glycopeptide from a digestive enzyme in Arctic fish, etc), but rather the broader lines of evidence.I'll start out with a few that I consider indicative, and then leave it open for others to add:1. biogeography: why are species distributed around the globe as they are? Why are closely related species found geographically near to each other? Why are continental islands full of terrestrial endemics that are different from anywhere else - but whose nearest relatives are on the adjacent continental masses? Why are oceanic islands filled with endemic birds, insects and plant life, but few if any mammals?2. convergent forms: Why are similar adaptations to specific environmental conditions found in vastly different organisms (i.e., placental wolves and marsupial Thylacinus cynocephalus) in widely separated parts of the globe? Why DOES the diversity of life fit so neatly into a nested hierarchy of similarity?3. geology/paleontology: Why are the layers of rock so conformal around the world - to the point that you can correlate ages and sequences from one part of the world to another in many cases? Why are the sequences of fossils invariably time-correlated, regardless of where they are? Why don't we find mammals or angiosperms, for instance, in the oldest basement rocks?4. molecular biology: Why can we often correlate relationships between organisms based on molecular biology with relationships based on morphology?5. Ecology and population genetics: Why do we see variation from one end of a species range to the other, such that at the extremes they appear as completely different species? How can we explain ecological specialization, local extinctions, the effects of ecosystem degradation, the sanctuary effect, ecological zonation, niche partitioning, etc?Just some first thoughts. Additions, comments welcome.And for booboo: If you're feeling frisky, please pick ONE of the above to "dissolve in a few minutes."[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-29-2003][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-29-2003]

These are easily dissolved.All the answers can be found here Dinosaur Adventure Land

It would be appropriate to pick the individual issues and summarize DrDino's refutation. Also point to the specific page where there is more indepth discussion.This will help organize the debate a bit. (also I'm afraid you've picked a very poor partner in your debate )

NN: Brian's reply was completely tongue-in-cheek (note the winking Felix). He was "prophecying" booboo's response...

Oh, forgive me. My sense of humour failed for a minute.

Personally, I find the demonstrated utility of heritable mutation + natural selection the most convincing evidence. As a mechanism it's more than robust enough to account for the wide variety of life forms, as well as accounting for their individual weaknesses.To me, the actual historical narrative of living development (fossils, etc.) is not of primary interest. The way it actually happened isn't (to me) as significant as the way it was made possible to happen.But hey, that's just me. Obviously I'm not a biologist. Just an interested guy.

What I've come to because of thinking and reading about this is this fascinating picture of life on earth.The physical enviroment is in a constant state of flux. Both over short time scales and long. Both gradually and rapidly.In this context is a stew of astronoimical numbers of living things. Each one a little experiment. Over and over life bounces around in a chaotic fashion. And like the somewhat chaotic dance of a prize fighter it allows it to respond to the changes as they arise. There is this fizzing stew of things. No species or any other groups. Just trillions of individuals each different from the next, maybe a lot different maybe almost indistinguishably different but different.It's an amazing picture.But, you know, even with that. I can understand why individuals find it incredulous that life could have reached into all the nooks and crannies and 'found' all the ways to live it has. It is an awesome picture. One hard to wrap your head around even if you're not impared by a restricted world view to begin with.

Coevolution is very convincing. Yucca flowers depend on yucca moths. The moth has specialized mouthparts to collect and carry yucca pollen. While visiting a flower, the female moth places a packet of pollen in a depression on the stigma of the flower, ensuring successful seed formation. She then lays its eggs inside each flower it visits. When the moth"s eggs hatch, they feed on the developing seeds of the plant, but never eat all of them, ensuring that at least some viable seeds are produced.Hummingbirds and the flowers they pollonate are other good examples.

quote:

---

But, you know, even with that. I can understand why individuals find it incredulous that life could have reached into all the nooks and crannies and 'found' all the ways to live it has. It is an awesome picture. One hard to wrap your head around even if you're not impared by a restricted world view to begin with.

---

I just wanted to agree with this. Evolution is extremely hard to believe until someone explains the process, and even then it takes a lot of explaining.I know creationists misquote Darwin's comment about how hard it is to believe that an eye could evolve, but he did say it was hard to believe without an explanation (an explanation which he gave). Dawkins starts his _The Blind Watchmaker_ with an awesome description of the sonar in bats, his very point being how hard it is to believe that such an ability could evolve gradually. Darwin also has a good description of behavior and gender in ants which is also meant to show how difficult it is to see an evolution for that behavior.Mind you, I know the explanations work, and I believe the explanations, but life really is a marvel; in my opinion, more of a marvel from an evolutionary standpoint than a creationist one. From a creationist viewpoint, you marvel at the Creator (and where he came from), but life is pretty simple (God did it). I guess that's why we humans were mostly all creationists until 150 years ago. You figure that if Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years then 150 years is less than a tenth of a percent of our history.

quote:

---

I just wanted to agree with this. Evolution is extremely hard to believe until someone explains the process, and even then it takes a lot of explaining.

---

I think it's difficult because explaining the process isn't enough. I'm not sure that his qualifies but it seems to me that the diversity of life is an emergent property of the evolutionary process. If you didn't have the example outcome before you but understood the process in great detail you would still be astonished at the outcome.It isn't the intellectual understanding that is needed. You need some gut idea of what can arise out of simple processes. Then you're more ready to internalize what can come from a more complex process.Conways game of "Life" helps, I think, prepare one for what is possible.
http://www.radicaleye.com/lifepage/

I'm not sure I followed your point, Ned, although I think I did. I haven't looked at your link yet. I have to go run an errand, and then I will. I think your main point is at least somewhat summed up in:

quote:

---

If you didn't have the example outcome before you but understood the process in great detail you would still be astonished at the outcome.

---

I had a thought on this that has always interested me. Darwin's approach to evolution in _Origin of Species_ has always seemed backwards to me from what I was taught in school and from most debate approaches. Darwin started with the outcome, life today, saw the fact that subspecies were, by definition, descendants of the species they belonged to, then noticed how hard it was to classify organisms as belonging to species, subspecies and genera. He used doves as an example, pointing out that if naturalists didn't know they all (probably all) descended from Rock Pigeons, then they would classify doves as falling into three different genera. He then hypothesized that species descended from genera, genera from families, and on back.Today, most everyone starts with the fossil record, pointing out the simplicity and lack of diversity of early life, then following it forward to modern life. Darwin went the other way.If I followed you, then that seemed somewhat related to what you were saying. It always fascinated me, and it gave me a real respect for Darwin's reasoning ability as well as his incredible knowledge of modern life forms.

Darwin worked from the "problem", what had to be explained. That appears backwards but you may have a very good point. That might be an excellent method for introducing the topic in a classroom.It is amazing that he managed to come up with ToE given that he worked without knowledge of genetics, the genome etc.I think I didn't express my points very well.One is that really understanding something this complex requires more than intellectualizing it. It requires getting a feel for complexity and emergent properties. A "gut" feel and feel more than just knowing the facts.
PS (added by edit)
I once had a math prof who after working through a proof and getting to QED asked where we thought the originator of the proof started. The answer was, of course, the QED.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-29-2003]

I succumbed to Boobootroll's challenge to provide the "most irrefutable, powerful evidence" for evolution bu posting the following message;

quote:

---

Thus boasts the creation scientist Booboo:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send me, (here at THIS forum) the most irrefutable, powerful evidence YOU have for evolution and I'd be glad to dissolve it in a few minutes. I read Ernst Mayr's book on evolution (he is a Harvard professor of zoology) and ALL the arguments he seems to be using against creation is out-dated and unreliable logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Perhaps you could provide an alternative explanation for the pattern of occurance of the GLO pseudogene in primates. Humans, chimpanzees, macaque and orangutan all share an identical crippling deletion mutation in their GLO gene which renders it useless and therefore they are dependent on dietary vitamin C. Prosimians, conventionally classified as a more distantly related group of primates, apparently have functional GLO genes. Most mammals have functional functional GLO genes.

​

The postulation from evolutionary science is that humans, chimpanzees, macaque and orangutans are descended from a common ancestor which had the mutated GLO gene in its genome and passed it down to its descendant species. In turn that common ancestor was descended from an earlier ancestor which it shared with prosimians, but that ancestor has a functional GLO gene.

​

Obviously humans, chimpanzees etc are different species but the pattern of GLO pseudogene distribution supports the existence of a previous common ancestor and subsequent macroevolution has resulted in the extant species.

​

So, the creationist explanation for this pattern is......?

---

To avoid further diverting the Why Literal? thread I've challenged Booboocruise to come here and give a substantive rebuttal. Time will tell.

(Sorry about my delayed response--I am not on this forum 24-7).Anyway: biogeography is a far cry from evidence for evolution. The divergence of similar animals between continents can just as easily be explained by the flood as it can by evolution. You see, supposing my viewpoint be true, the waters aswaged and thus created dry bridges between many of the continents for several hundred years (also, the ice age would have decreased the size of the oceans in the years following the flood).Sorry, there is no reason to believe that biogeography automatically indicates evidence for evolution.
Paleontolofy: if your side be true, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the polystrate fossils--there are hundreds of them, particularly in Nova Scotia, and they all indicate that the rock layers were set down at the same time. Have you ever been to Mt. St. Helens? I've seen the bases of the area, and the rock layers around the base of the mountain were created since the volcano erupted, yet they seem to represent the layers of rocks where geologists seem to claim are 'millions of years old.'Sorry, try againMolecular biology: There is no reason to believe that the molecular similarities between animals are evidence of evolution. DNA are the building blocks of life--the Governor's Palace of Williamsburg and Tradoc Headquarters of Fort Monroe are both made of brick, yet that means they have a common creator--MAN! Also, if you are so into molecular biology, and IF evolution is true, then perhaps you could explain why the fern has 480 chromosomes (evolution says it's one of the first plant forms to evolve, yet it is more complex at the molecular level than most of its "predecessors")
Sorry, try again

Also, I didn't get the idea you knew this already (though I may be misunderstanding your first comment) but they DO NOT date fossils by radiometric decay--fossils are dated based on what layer of rock they are found in (but the mere existence of the hundreds of polystrate fossils seem to give the geologists a reason to reconsider the entire theory that the different layers mean different ages). Simple: if you shake up a glass of soil and water, the sediments automatically settle into layers, yet that happens all at the same time. The layers of sedimentary rock could just as easily be evidence for the flood as it could be for evolution--we just don't know for sure, so I'm sticking with the God's word.