The Complete Evidence for Evolution (in progress)
Submitted by darktremor on Wed, 08/08/2007 - 01:47
Tags:
- Many people go on my belief-type lists and argue that evolution isn't proper science, that it requires a certain degree of faith, etc., then go on to cite poorly concieved arguments and supposed holes in the theory, or tell me there's no good evidence for it. I'm tired of arguing with them, so I've compiled every major piece of evidence supporting the theory. There is also some evidence against a "young earth" view of existence. It's going to be incomplete at first, so send me any I've missed. Please verify them first though. Also note that when I say "proved" I mean "almost indisputably evidenced" (ie: 80 good studies published supporting a view makes it "almost indisputable evidenced." 2 studies supporting a view does not.)
- Vestigial features. These are features that had clear use in ancestral lifeforms, but are no longer functional in the creature that contains them (or some count structures that were much more functional in an earlier form as vestigial as well). Many creationists try to explain their actual usefulness, but there is no evidence to support most of these uses, and no experimentation has found any. Here is a compiled list of them:
- Internal leg bones in whales, unattached to any muscle. The structure of these leg bones matches the structure of the bones of the land mammals phylogenetically, genetically, and structurally evidenced to be the ancestors of modern whales.
- Wings with features streamlined specifically for flight, in flightless birds (but lacking feathers or some other feature to actually allow for flight). These also match the structure of flying birds.
- Tiny internal legs in snakes (most have no muscles attached, and therefore cannot be used) [Interestingly, fossils have been found of ancient creatures with extremely similar skeletal structures to snakes that had much larger and better developed, and therefore likely functional, limbs. These are carbon-dated to pre-date modern snakes, and are phylogenetic analysis finds them to be ancestral to modern snakes - which shows these now unused limbs once had a use. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5460/2010)
- Jacobson's organ - a small organ in the nose. It is extremely useful for pheromone detection in animals, including many of our close relatives, but totally useless in humans, since a)it disappears during fetal development for a large percentage of people, and b)there are no nerves traveling to and from it (or anything that can release hormones) in those that do have it after birth, which is necessary for it to be useful, since it's a sense organ, and c) During fetal development it DOES have these nerve connections, and also a system to release luteinizing hormone - both of which are features of the functional Jacobson's organs found in animals (in fact, it very closely resembles these organs in animals in a lot of ways).
- The human male uterus, and male nipples. I think it's self-evident why these are both vestigial.
- The appendix in humans. This seems to have a lot of use in species related to us that eat a lot more plants, but it does nothing in humans.
- Poorly put-together features in many species. A good example is the human eye. The optic nerve connects to the front of the retina, which gives us a blind spot, which lowers our visual resolution. Second, many of our retinal processing cells are in front of the cells that detect incoming light, which means that the light must travel through a layer of cells, which distorts and blurs our vision. Squid have much better eyes than humans, and have neither of these deficiencies.
- Radiocarbon dating of species showing ages of species that logically follow estimated lines of evolution based on the phylogenetic tree. For example, gracile australopithecines allegedly evolved from the australopithecus afarensis homonids based on examination of their features. Radiocarbon dating then shows that the approximated ordering of this evolution was correct - as the ages of the two species line up properly. OK, creationists will argue that the ordering is consistent with the order God created the species in. However, radiocarbon dating disagrees, age-wise (not thousands of years old, but millions to billions for most fossils - I say most because some fossils are thousands of years old - and well they should be based on when those creatures should have died - ie later homonids), and it is an indisputable technique for finding the number of years ago a creature died. It is a really simple process when you boil it down: while any creature is alive, there is a certain proportion of carbon-14 (a radioactive isotope of carbon) in the creature compared to the proportion of carbon-12 (the stable state of carbon). Upon the death of that creature, this carbon-14 proportion is no longer kept constant, as no new carbon enters the system from the atmosphere. By looking at the amount of carbon-14 left in the creature that hasn't decayed to regular carbon-12 or carbon-13, and calibrating it to the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere at the time of the creature's death (which is only for making measurements more precise. The difference in amount is fairly negligible), one can then determine approximately how many years ago the creature died using the rate at which this decay occurs. The rate of decay of carbon-14 is known, so the age of a fossil can be determined this way. IE: (Note that this is a gross simplification with numbers made up to purposely make this simple) a fossil is found that has a proportion of 1024 carbon-12 atoms to every 1 carbon-14 atom. It is known that the half-life [time for half of all atoms in the isotope to decay, which has been separately proven to occur on an exponential curve - which is consistent across samples] of carbon-14 is 100 years. The proportion of carbon-14 in a creature upon death is 1 carbon-12 to every 2 carbon-14 atoms. So, we can conclude that the creature died 900 years ago. < again, remember that all of those numbers were completely fabricated for simplicity, but the general idea is there. Real numbers would be measured in millions, and real half-lives are much longer.
- Even more compellingly, the dates produced by this method match the dates produced by other dating methods, which work using completely different mechanisms. On top of this, other radioactive isotopes can be dated using the same method as carbon dating, and these too produce dates consistent with all other methods. Some of these other methods are outlined here:
- http://aragorn.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/dating/index.htm
- LINES and SINES (long interspersed elements, and short interspersed elements). These are DNA groups that are created when redundant nucleotide groups enter the nuclei of cells, and join with the cellular DNA. They are completely nonfunctional, and make no change to the creature's phenotype (in other words, the creature doesn't change in any way, behaviorally or physically - the new DNA does nothing). However, this change gets passed on. Each LINE and SINE is unique (there is an exponentially large number of possible SINES - we're talking numbers that make trillions seem like nothing at all), and once it appears in one creature, it then appears in every offspring of the creature initially harboring it. LINEs and SINEs can be traced down the estimated order that species appeared, and the order that species' came into existence as determined by this method precisely matches the order found by other methods. For example, in the fossilized ancestral species of both humans and modern apes, we find a particular set of matching precisely matching LINEs and SINEs. As we look at more and more distant species, we find fewer and fewer matching LINES and SINES. Also, if a LINE or SINE first appeared in one particular species, we never find it in species who did not descend from that creature - IE if a LINE first appeared in a common ancestor of humans and fish, we always find it in all humans in fish, but if it first appeared in the common ancestor of humans and apes, we only find it in humans and apes, and not in any species that did not descend from this ancestor. Since each LINE and SINE must be unique, the species must be related.
- It is known that all LINES and SINES are unique by simple math. Each nucleotide (the basic piece of information) of DNA is made up of one of 4 base pairs: adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine (the famous G A T C one sees when DNA is sequenced). For simplicity's sake, let's assume all LINEs and SINEs are 250 nucleotides long (this is actually shorter than almost all of them actually are, since some of the shortest are 280 base pairs long). That means there are 3.25*10 ^150 different arrangements - so 325 followed by 150 zeros. (this is a simplification, but the basic idea is there).
- Speciation (the evolution of one completely distinct species from another) has been actively observed several times. For example, the evening primrose (Oenothera lamarckiana) was being bred by a scientist studying it's genetics. However, during his breeding of this species (several generations into the breeding, I might add, meaning he didn't just accidentally collect two different species), he noticed a group of new evening primroses that were unable to breed with the rest of them - only with others in the group. Upon examining their DNA, he found that the original evening primrose had a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The new ones had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. A new species was born, which is now officially classified as Oenothera gigas. (De Vries, 1905) There are several other instances of such events by multiple processes. See also: Owenby, 1950; Clausen et. al., 1945; Bullini and Nasceti, 1990; Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1971; Halliburton and Gall, 1981; Weinberg et. at., 1992; Boraas, 1983; Shikano, et al., 1990, etc.. I can give full references if anyone disputes this claim and requests them.
- The fossil record. Thousands of fossil sequences have been found chronologically showing a slow succession. Many sequences have existed in the past missing certain species to complete them, with missing links inferred from the fossils seen, only to have fossils fitting the needed characteristics of that linking species found - and dated into the correct place (ie: a fish was discovered recently with legs). So many like to say there are no transitionary creatures. This is blatant ignorance of the evidence, some of which is obvious. Like I said above, um, dinosaurs? See any of them around today? Some like to say that there are still missing links, which is true, but this doesn't refute Darwin. Obviously there are going to be missing links, as the conditions required to create fossils are astronomically rare. Animals must be buried under constant, rapid sedimentation to fossilize. On top of that, they must not be disrupted by earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, or any other natural forces for millions of years. This is such an abnormal condition in nature that obviously there are going to be gaps. In fact, unless we have every creature that ever reproduced there are gaps in the fossil record. It is never going to be complete, and it never should be. However, what we do have (which is a lot) is consistent and everything dates to the times that evolution predicts it should. For example, no homonids have been found dating to 100 million years ago, and no 40000 year old dinosaurs have been found (the actual accuracy we have is much greater than that, but I'm keeping it simple). On top of that, when transitional fossils are found (which is actually fairly common, see the recent finding of an extinct fossilized fish with legs), they are often not publicized, just described in complex journal papers that the public will never read.
- Atavisms. These are structures that commonly reappear in creatures after they have disappeared from the species, that were functional in an earlier form of the species. The most commonly known example is babies born with tails. Because genetic traits can be recessive (research Mendelevian genetics - another proven concept, this time pragmatically so - for an explanation of this one, it's too long for me to put here), some traits can remain in a species' genetic code, without being expressed phenotypically. Upon the pairing of two creatures that both have this recessive trait, if the recessive gene is chosen by 50-50 chance from each parent, the trait will be expressed in the child. Also, dolphins and whales have been found with full hindlegs. This supports evolution, as whales and dolphins have been genetically found to be descendants of land mammals (see LINEs and SINEs, etc.). These random appearances are far more likely to occur for traits that were useful to ancestors of that species.
- Slight changes in proteins required for all life. Certain proteins exist that all life everywhere needs to exist, such as the proteins used by cells to unzip DNA for replication. However, there are multiple proteins and DNA sequences that can be used to these effects (DNA is used to manufacture proteins - again, I won't outline the process here, as it's very long and technical, but if you google it, you'll find a wealth of information. Type in "ribosomes" and ). Extremely similar versions of these proteins can be found in closely related species, such as humans and chimpanzees, however, as you get more distant, the proteins that perform precisely the same function start to look different. (This occurs because all proteins have certain parts that are functional, and other parts that are simply structural and can be filled by any number of different nucleotides [which are the building blocks of proteins]). As species become more and more distantly related, the differences become larger and larger in those proteins required for all life - the differences in the DNA sequences to make those proteins changes more and more as you get more and more distant. Mutations to the non-functional parts of these proteins won't have any effect on the species, but the same versions of these proteins have been found in closely related species, and only in closely related species.
- Parahomology. Certain parts of certain species shown to be related often show a similarily in structure, despite a difference in function. There are an enormous number of possible ways (nearly infinite) to put together the bone structures of various functional parts. However, the structures found in modern creatures are always similar to those of their fossilized genetic ancestors, even if the function is different.
- All of the above evidences seperately support the modern construction of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree. For example, a chimp is, according to the phylogenetic tree, closely related to humans (in that both are in the primate family). It is found that there are similar bone structure between humans and chimps(despite some functional differences). There are also certain LINEs and SINEs common to humans and chimps that don't occur in more distant species (such as jellyfish). Some proteins neccessary to life are manufactured with very similar redundant nucleotides in both chimips and humans. Many common ancestors to chimps and humans have been found: as both the redundant nucleotides in proteins required for life, LINEs and SINEs, and structural similarities to these match as well. Vestigial features in humans are useful in chimps. Etc. The odds of all of the above evidences lining up in virtually all cases (I say "virtually" only because I haven't examined all cases, as this is impossible. I'm not aware of a single time that all have not lined up, but perhaps one exists) is nearly impossible with any explanations other than "evolution" or a very secretive God that doesn't want us to know he exists, and so plants nearly perfect evidence for evolution's existence to refute his own existence. For parsimony's sake, the second is rejected (plus, for logical reasons, this view is incredibly stupid. Research "logic" and "theory" and "scientific method" and you'll understand why. There is too much to write on those subjects to put it all here).
Bravo for making this darktremor. Put those fundies back in their places.
haha, thanks.
Too bad the people who are stupid enough to be young earth creationists won't be smart enough to understand the complex (but airtight) genetic arguments...
Which are the really convincing ones. I don't even have half of them posted yet.
I think, if someone doesn't already agree with evolution by now, they probably have such a mental block against it that no power on Earth is going to make them agree with it.
That's probably true. But there are a number of people who flip-flop back and forth because no one provides them with proper evidence for evolution. I think this is why the majority of Americans don't believe it: they have a terrible school system that sometimes doesn't even provide any evidence for evolution (if it teaches evolution at all and not that idiotic intelligent design theory).
Actually a lot of the stuff you mentioned is argued (some of which gets disproved) in Micheal Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. He is not a creationist himself. Behe has a Ph.D in biochemistry and states that "some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept 'irreducible complexity'." He also talks about "poorly" put together structures which you mention.
If you ever get a chance you should read this book. It explains irreducible complexity in a very clear way and although there are a lot of biochemical terms and the like in it, it provides simple analogies which evolutionists find hard, even impossible to explain.
Since you're so interested in this subject (I find that few people are), might I be so bold and ask you how the origin of life got started? If evolution is true, it should account for every organism up to the very first one that supposedly self-conceived itself out of non-living material. So how did a living organism arise out of non-living material?
I also heard (and read) that there were huge errors and associated with radiocarbon dating (and the like) that yielded huge inaccuracies and uncertainties, so I don't know if you can use this as a source of evidence.
As for the speciation thing; that could very well just be a "micro-evolution" or variation which gave off a new species. Same thing with black bears and brown bears that have differing numbers of chromosomes; that doesn't count as evolution since they're still the same genus. And homology is a weak source of evolution in itself.
Also, one requirement for evolution is mutation. Since you probably already know that mutations cause changes in the DNA of an organism (ie. genes are removed or displaced), why don't we ever see an example of a positive mutation? We see plenty of examples of detrimental mutations such as two headed sheep, 6 fingered hands etc...but why don't the textbooks ever show positive ones?
...and you might wanna change the building blocks of proteins to amino acids instead of nucleotides where you talk about speciation.
* ^proteins
Read this article, for my rebuttal to irreducible complexity summarized:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
He even talks about Darwin's Black Box, and why that argument is fallacious. Irreducible complexity is an argument ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance, lack of knowledge, or lack of imagination) of the worst kind: we don't know how a structure is reduced by evolution, therefore it can't have been reduced by evolution. This is silly. You don't hear anyone saying "We don't yet know precisely how the amygdala in the brain works, therefore it isn't the cause negative emotions, a divine creator shooting unhappiness into us is the cause." People have been doing this forever, and it's the source of a lot of absurd religious beliefs. "What's thunder?" "I don't know." "Then it must be God expressing his rage!"
Besides, many "irreducible" structures have since been reduced: even the flagellum, once the ubiquitous symbol of irreducible complexity. Evolutionists don't find this concept hard to explain at all, "irreducible complexity" of some sort or another is present in every puzzle in science. IE: In physics, we don't know how quantum strings get into the forms that they do: they seem too complex to arrange themselves. However, no one jumps out and says "It's a divine force doing it!" There have been hundreds of structures in nature that science has at first been unable to figure out how they naturally formed, only to later discover the mechanism behind it...which brings up new questions...which are solved, bringing up new questions, and so on. The answer has never been "divine creator," there's ALWAYS an explanation.
The exception to the "always an explanation" is what I call the two impossible problems of science: consciousness, and what started the causal chain of existence. Say what you want about those two, but it's silly to bring a divine force into anything else.
As for positive changes, we see them all the time! Who told you we don't? That's ridiculous! Some examples, of thousands I could find for you:
1)Sickle-cell anemia is a mutation that began in sub-Saharan Africa. While it seems to be a negative one, it is actually a great survival advantage for that group of people, because it prevents this group from dying of malaria, and thus increases the total survival of that group.
2)Superbugs: bacteria mutate in ways that make them more likely to survive an assault from our antibiotics (a positive mutation for them, if I ever did see one).
3)Brown fat: Inuit people have a mutation that created a gene that gives them a special energy source called "brown fat" which makes them very well suited for living in cold climates.
4)The peppered moth. Before the Inudstrial Revolution, the trees outside of London were white. The moths were also white, to blend in and thus be unseen by predators. However, once the revolution came, a few decades in, the trees had all turned grey. Some of the moths had a mutation that put more pigment near the surface of their bodies, thus making them more likely to blend in, and thsu survive (they're all grey now).
5)Cats. Feral cats in ancient times that had a mutant gene causing them to lose their aggressive tendencies were able to eat mice that flocked to early grain silos. These cats were more likely to survive, as humans wouldn't shoo them away or kill: their presence would be welcomed, because they provide the service of getting rid of the mice. These such mutations continued until the whole group of them speciated into the modern housecat.
6)Ever hear of a brilliant person born to mediocre parents? I certainly have, many times. If that's not a positive mutation, I don't know what is.
If you want, I can give you dozens more examples, they're all over the scientific literature.
I got this off a website:
"The mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection."
Basically this is saying that because it may provide one advantage to people living in Africa it still has a much more detrimental effect to one's health since it significantly decreases one's life expectancy (as well as all the other complications associated with the disease). This is like saying if I chop off both my feet i'll never get athlete's foot.
As for the superbut thing, humans can develop a tolerance to pretty any drug or antibiotic out there (given enough time), but this does not mean we will ever develop a tolerance to getting shot by a bullet.
Im basically saying that just because a mutation provides one advantage; it is still limited only to what's already present in DNA (if I keep jumping off a cliff, will I ever develop wings? NO! because it's not in my DNA)
When it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent. There are no positive mutations!
BTW, I'm still reading the irreducible complexity thing so i'll get back to you on that.
Sickle-cell anemia is a disadvantage to everyone who isn't in that population - it's an advantage to them, it increases their survival rate, as one with the disorder can't be infected with malaria, which DOES kill, and in rampant areas, it can make it nearly impossible to survive: sickle-cell anemia makes people in those kinds of areas far more likely to survive.
OK, so maybe sickle-cell anemia's advantages are disputable (although it IS a completely new gene that creates an indisputable survival advantage in that population), but what about everything else on the list? How can you say there are no positive mutations? Did you not read any of my earlier examples? Some of those mutations are indisputably positive.
As for the devloping tolerance to getting shot by a bullet, isn't that somewhat irrelevant? Evolution doesn't claim we'll ever have that ability. As for the superbugs, these are actual mutations in the diseases DNAs that give them different characteristics that make antibiotics not work. For example, a bacterium could be destroyed by an antibiotic that disrupts a protein in it's cell membrane, making it unable to absorb energy. If one gene is accidentally added to one of the bacteria in a group (through one of the many mutagenic factors, which I can outline for you if you'd like) that makes that protein form slightly differently, such that the antibiotic can't disrupt it anyore, then that bacteria is more likely to survive. While the others in that bacterial colony are killed by the antibiotic, that one lives on and reproduces, and that strain is now a "superbug." This has been observed dozens of times, and is indiputably positive for the bacteria, and DOES involve the addition of DNA.
OK, well, if you want some larger mutations (which are rare, and not really required for evolution to work):
1)A girl was born recently with a fully functioning third arm.
2)A fossilized fish with feet was recently discovered, which is close to other prehistoric species of fish, simply with the addition of feet.
Also, evolution doesn't work by having you adapt during your life. Jumping off a cliff growing wings is irrelevant to evolution - evolution doesn't work that way. Mutations are small, incremental, and give slowly increasing advantages that can eventually create very complex, large changes in the long term. Structures are not always used for what they were first evolved for: ie: webbed feet would give a swimming advantage to a creature that originally walked on land, and could thus be used as a flipper. This creature could have an advantage of being better able to catch fish, even though there was initially only advantage to developing feet that made faster walking on land. The foot is no longer used for what it first gave advantage to do, because of a single new mutation.
Before we discuss is further, do you understand how evolution actually works? The examples you give of things evolution "should" be able to do are not examples of evolution.
BTW, your genetic line COULD develop wings given the right circumstances, and millinos of years to evolve them (ie: we live in cliffs where we often fall large distances. People who get a gene through accident that causes them to be a bit lighter framed would be less likely to die of a fall. Someone else could be born with slightly less tight skin, so the skin can create drag and slow the fall a little, making the person less likely to die from a fall. The skin could get incrementally looser, as each looseness would provide more advantage: to a point. More advantage would occur to those who got more skin under the arms, making them more likely to survive, until after millions of small changes, those born with more and more skin under the arms attaching to the hips eventually have rudimentary wings. Those whose hair gets more spread out (ie: flat, long hair, looking like hedges) would be more likely to fall slowly. This pattern could complexify, over hunderds of generations, with each added ocmplexity that occurs making that person with that mutation more likely to survive. Eventually, through those two processes, you would have hair that was similar to feather, and skin attaching to the sides from under the arms, and a much lighter frame (as people who had mutations that put them in this direction would be more likely to survive). We could glide at this point. That's more how evolution works: natural selection.
If you still aren't convinced, I'll give you a list of dozens of positive mutations, where things are added by accident that provide advantages.
Note that mutations do not occur to people while living. They occur in the DNA that is transferred to your offspring. Even if your DNA mutates during your life, it won't mutate in all of your body, just in some places (which usually has nasty results, most commonly cancer).
There do exist mutations that affect an organism beneficially (such as the examples you pointed out; albeit rare ones), however, because a mutation presents beneficial traits does not mean that it is a positive mutation. Sickle-cell anemia reduces the normal function of red blood cells, thus reducing one's efficiency in oxygen transfer.
I see what you mean. However, there are positive traits: they're called additive traits, and they're actually quite common. Not all additive traits are beneficial (and yes, beneficial mutations are indeed more rare than detrimental ones, but the detrimental ones generally die out quickly, and thus have little to no effect on the gene pool).
Within our DNA, only a small percentage of the material is actually used for coding, the majority is vestigial (such as transposons), or turned off specifically by the body. Mutations that add this random DNA are very common, and because only single nucleotides can be added or removed (or full, already formed sections that create new proteins). The most famous examples of additive mutations (that actually add DNA) are of people being born with extra limbs, but I can give more if you'd like.
I've always wondered whether an organism can evolve into another organism (speciation). I agree with you that beneficial mutations get improved upon every generation (while detrimental ones die out), but how can something like a lizard, evolve into something like a bird (which is what scientists are claiming) which has a very different DNA (correct me if I'm wrong) and does not have the genetic potential of becoming a bird. Not even the most beneficial and most often occurring germline mutations will change the fact that birds do not have the capacity to produce scales or become cold-blooded, just as humans do not have the capacity to grow feathers and start flying. If it's not written in our DNA then it cannot manifest itself. Mutations manipulate preexisting DNA, i.e., what's already present in somatic/germ cells and do not gain any new information that would make it more similar to a different species; hell that's what separates us all in the first place - differences in our DNA. Sure mutations may give us benefits, but they can only take us so far, after all, our gene pool is limited to the genes that make up our chromosomes and DNA.
The problem is, you're trying to imagine how a lizard can directly become a bird. That's not the way you should think about evolution, and no biologist would suggest that evolution really works that way: a lizard doesn't just give birth to a bird. A lizard will not suddenly grow feathers or become warm-blooded, it must get there gradually. There are many categories in between. For example, a warm-blooded lizard is really hard to imagine, but how hard is it to imagine a lizard with muscles that vibrate ever-so-slightly at all times? Or a lizard with a brain that continuously fires acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junctions - firing a small amount at resting state versus none? Not very hard, I'd say: that's one, maybe two mutations? That's all it would take to make a lizard gain a great survival advantage that pushes it in the direction of being warm-blooded. Each subsequent mutation that increases the amount of acetylcholine fired at neuromuscular junctions would increase that species of lizard's ability to generate it's own warmth, until eventually, after tens of thousands of years, it could be considered what we would cal warm-blooded.
As for feathers, I think my earlier possible evolutionary pathway for humans becoming more and more safe living on cliffs explains it: each mutation that makes the hair more complex gives survival advantage, until after hundreds of mutations, the form of feathers is the result.
Evolution is ALL gradual. Asking how it is that small mutations can (over the eons) change reptiles into birds is like asking how droplets of rain can fill a lake. You just need a LOT of them. (and there's plenty of evidence that there are a LOT of them).
Our gene pool isn't really limited to what's already in our chromosomes and DNA. DNA can change, genes can be added and removed through addition, subtraction, transcription, reversal, etc. of nucleotides already there. You can change Green Eggs and Ham into the complete Encyclopedia Britannica by changing one letter at a time, in the same way that an amoeba can change into a human by changing one nucleotide at a time. By changing, I of course mean adding, removing, reversing, transcribing, etc..
The DNA between a bird and a reptile is not fundamentally different at all. It's the same 4 nucleotides mixed around into different patterns, and the DNA is turned into proteins by almost exactly the same methods. The difference between a bird and a reptile is like the different between Mac OS and Windows: yes, they're incompatible, but deep down, they're both still made entirely out of 1s and 0s. In fact, even an amoeba's DNA is fundamentally built exactly the same way as a human's.
Interesting point, I must say; but what would the survival advantage of that be, i.e., how would that benefit a lizard?
Warm-bloodedness would be a benefit to lizards that live farther north. Cold-bloodedness is only an advantage ever in quatorial regions that are mostly warm year round. Those living far enough north that they have to struggle during the colder season would see an advantage in being warm-blooded (note that warm-blooded isn't a disadvantage equitorially, it's just not particularly advantageous). As for feathers, the cliffs example with the humans still applies here.
I didn't know that lizards lived in cold areas.
They don't, but as you get a bit farther north (like past the tropic of cancer or capricorn), seasons start to come into play. While lizards can still survive here (and they do - think southern US), it would certainly be a survival advantage to be warm-blooded.
-enter evolution here-
What do you mean?
well, you're the one that said they don't live in cold areas lol, so I guess evolution may act on these lizards
Well, natural selection acts on everything, always. However, the survival pressure exerted on these lizards that live, not in cold areas, but in areas more northern than the tropics (IE: Southern US) would be to display some warm-blooded traits, as this would help them to survive the colder (the key part is the ER, as it's still not exactly freezing in Texas during the winter) season. Eventually, as this survival pressure continued over many millenia, you could have warm-blooded creatures. Do you know what I mean?
yes i think so; natural selection - the main mechanism of evolution selects the most favorable of these lizards to survive and gradually changes the lizard's traits by eliminating those which are unfavorable, to those which prove a survival advantage; yes?
Exactly!
Like I said, the theory of evolution seems to be nearly foolproof. I've been looking for a reasonable and complete argument against it (against it, and not against one of the popular though absurd straw effigies of it that Christianity likes to burn), and have yet to find one, from anyone or anywhere.
well, i wouldn't call it foolproof; it still needs to account for the very first organism and how life got started out of non-living material; scientists have proposed several theories of which all were unsuccessful
I wouldn't say unsuccessful, I'd just say incomplete, and there were some earlier models that actually worked quite well: they were just very improbable.
Also, the newer RNA origin of life theory (versus the earlier DNA origin of life) holds quite a bit of promise.
hmmm, true; science always discovers new things that once seemed inexplainable, since improvements are always being made in this modern age, technological advancements allow us to dwell deeper into the fountain of knowledge; i think the farther down in time we go (in the future); the bigger one group will get over the other between evolutionary biologists and creationists because of the knowledge we will discover.
Well, evolutionary biology has already slaughtered creationism. There is not one tiny shred of evidence for creationism. 0.15% of biologists are not evolutionists at this point.
Not only has evolution been essentially proven using all of the evidence above, but we've actually exploited it and created technologies based on it (to treat disorders, etc.). Not believing in evolution today, is like not believing in electricity while watching television.
i wonder then why a lot of biologists/geneticists are christians; isn't that an oxymoron?
Being Christian doesn't mean believing in creationism. The vast majority of Christians, and pretty much all educated Christians are evolutionists. The problem comes when people take the bible literally; the Bible was never meant to be taken as such. Most see the stories in it as parables, and not strict truth. In fact, the majority of Christians ignore the old testament (looking at it much as anyone would look at The Iliad), and follow the New Testament. Moderate/liberal Christianity doesn't, by definition go against science. A realy liberal Christian will always follow science before the Bible, only going with their beliefs on issues that sciences has nothing to say about (such as afterlife). I personally think it still makes a lot of that are completely unfounded and seem really unlikely to me, but it's not completely irrational and out of touch with reality, at the very least.
I never argue with liberal Christians (like I said, the vast majority) - in fact, my girlfriend (and her family) and both of my mentors are in that group, and it's never been an issue. Most truly liberal Christians are even willing to accept that the atheists have a good point in not believing in anything, they just don't personally.
Also, having talked to some moderately religious scientists (a little more religious than the liberal ones, but certainly not fundamentalist), most say that they leave the Bible at home, and bring reasoning and logic to the lab - religion is what they do on Sunday, science during the week. They don't care if there's a bit of contradiction: they don't think about science at church, and they don't think about religion in the lab. I think religion is more something they do than something they believe (a lot of them like the social atmosphere, the connections, the central idea of religion, etc., also).
most see the stories in it as parables? that's like saying they can pick out what they want to believe and what they don't; who's to say what is meant to be taken literally and what isn't? anyways, the point i want to make is that if you believe in God, you accept that he created all things, as it says in the bible (according to genesis), but doesn't that contradict the theory of evolution?
Every Christian has to pick what to believe and what not to; otherwise all of them would still own slaves and be allowed to torture them (in properly sanctioned ways), and would stone anyone who eats shellfish or works on a sunday. [See Exodus]. There's always interpretation, even the powerful literalists have to interpret some. Read up some statistics on it (outside of the Southern US): the majority of Christians worldwide don't think the Bible is literal truth.
Believing in God doesn't mean believing in creation 4000 years ago. If you take the Bible as parables and as abstract writing (which it's full of, some of it borders on being poetry versus prose/mythology, I don't see how anyone can take it all literally), then "the world was created in 6 days" could easily represent billions of years of creation. After all, a day is relative to the spinning of the earth. Who's to say what the Christian God's day would be? It's unlikely it would be the same as our day: how could it be the same? There was no spinning earth in the beginning. The whole creation story could just mean that some sort of creating force pushed the universe into existance with a set of pre-defined laws, and the interactions in this mechanical universe gave rise to light/darkness, planets, the oceans, plants, animals, evolution, humans, etc., and it wouldn't contradict certain Biblical interpretations. In fact, that's the official stance of the Catholic church (at least, it was under the previous pope, I'm not sure about this one). Big Bang theory is very consistent with that view of the Bible. I know dozens (at least 50) of people that believe in god, and only one of them disbelieves evolution (and she's got serious mental disorders - she's actually diagnosed with them). So no, belief in God and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.
I personally don't believe in those interpretations (or any interpretation of the Bible besides looking at it as mythology, like The Odyssey or Oedepus Rex), but they don't necessarily go against science.
DNA is made of nucleotides, and DNA is the information bank for the creation of proteins. plus, each amino acid is coded by three nucleotides. I was referring to the blueprint of the proteins, rather than what they're actually made of, because it's changes in the blueprint that actually change the proteins.
The inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating is true, but it's not inaccurate in that it gives wildly incorrect estimates, it's inaccurate in that it tends to be off by a thousand years or so in either direction, at worst. So radiocarbon dating (and dating of all kinds) when looking at something like evolution, which is measured in millions and billions of years, is a fairly good measure. The whole "it's arbitrary, it's so inaccurate that it can't be used" thing is just a twisting of it's lack of detail by so-called "creation scientists," which, by the way, make up only 0.15% of the biology and life sciences community (which means the people who are experts on the field of evolution):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html.
Yes, I know that's an argument by authority, but it is a good measure of the explanatory power of evolution, seeing as biology and life sciences started out trying to prove "God's creation." (so, the percentage believing in creationism went from 100% to 0.15% in 150 years). "Creation science" is not the great movement that this small fringe group wants us to believe.
I agree that Creationism doesn't seem to be a "great movement." But how can you explain that only one in seven believe that evolution is "definitely true"?
And fully one third of the population think evolution is "absolutely false." Being American is not an explanation. It might be a reason but it doesn't explain. I know National Geographic posits fundamentalism, politics and education. Perhaps it's just Turkish envy but it seems a little bit beyond the fringe-ish to me.
I'm bemused by your "argument by authority." It's my guess that you'd be skeptical if Creationists used the same tactic. Not only do I think your reasoning can stand up to scrutiny but I'd enjoy reading it (alongside ManofTrance's.) I'd scrutinize them with an intense scrute... and we shall see if I have a leg to stand on, Mr. Spiggot.
A Goon Show reference! A Beyond the Fringe reference! if only I could work in a Monty Python's Flying Circus reference. No? Oh well...
...And now for something completely different.
Well, I think the difference with my argument by authority is this is the authority of experts who spend their lives studying that exact topic. But case in point, I shouldn't use it anyway.
As for the lack of belief in evolution, I think it's the way it is presented in American schools - which is poorly. Besides being badly explained overall, there are also a lot of evolution myths that seem to be taught in American classes - even those that fully support evolution: IE: that humans came from monkeys, which is obviously untrue. These make evolution hard to believe and accept - because that version of evolution is ridiculous, and only an idiot would believe it. This unintentional caricature of the theory that is often taught is not accepted, and reasonably so, because it makes no sense. Plus the US is one of the most religious Western countries, which doesn't help evolution's following there.
Note: I say theory in the scientific sense, not the colloquial sense (the colloquial meaning is closer to "hypothesis" where the scientific meaning is closer to "fact").
Now I remember one thing that Darwin said, I don't know the exact quote but it was something like... I tremble when I think in the Eye...
God was having fun creating evolution, he was laughing at the discussions that would source. Man, God has some sense of humor.
I cannot imagine what the exact quote could be that is "something like" that...
I hope and pray (and vice versa) that gods spend their time on loftier things than constructing whoopee cushions for humanity
Perhaps god really was saying "pull my finger."
Hahahahahaha! Lovely observation. I laughed out loud, and I'm exhausted in my room alone at 4:20 in the morning. I'm probably going to laugh every time I see that painting now.
Jaimeblack, are you referring to this quote?:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." (Darwin, "Origin of Species", 1859)
Yes, that's a nice quote - it's a wonderfully simple and elegant explanation of the gradual evolution of complex structures. Thank you for bringing it up. I may insert it into the list at some point, it's very fitting indeed.
The way I see it evolution does make a lot of sense in terms of biogeography, genetic differences between species and the fossil record. The main question is how it all started and what caused the rapid changes in organisms over the past 200 or so million years. What I don't understand is how man has had the brain capacity to create civilisation for the past 100 000 years, yet civilisation is believed to have only started 10 000 years ago. Where was man for more than 90 % of the time.
Evolution may be thought of as a science in terms of its objectivity and methods, but it still contradicts several scientific as well as mathematical laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics - All systems tend to become chaotic. This should apply to evolution in its early stages. Why would random atoms, mainly Carbon and Hydrogen, come together to form organic chains which would fuel life. Why would they combine with nitrogen to form proteins?
The complexity of the human cell is mind boggling. There are certain mechanisms in the cell wall which resemble motors with rotors etc. Isaac Newton believed the eye to be one of the most complex parts of the human body and it is. A question he pondered was what caused the development of the eye. Think about a single celled organism. It has no perception of light or its closest wavelengths. I mean bacteria die when exposed to UV light which is fractionally higher in energy. You have this organism, in a sense, missing several dimensions of our reality, yet evolutionist believe it some how "discovered" this phenomenon and used it to its advantage. Its like humans suddenly becoming aware of the 7th dimension.
What I tend to think is that many people blind themselves from the facts as well as the truth. This statement is towards evolutionists and creationists and atheists for that matter. Life is something that must be cherished since we may only live onced, depending on your religion if you have one.
One comment that stirred me up the most, is that the graveyard is the richest place on earth. Why?!!!! Because it holds all the memories of people that did NOT live the life that they wanted. The graveyard is filled with songs that were never sung, books that were never written, voices that were never heard as well as people that may have never been loved. What makes me mad is that people will fight over trivial matters which, in the bigger picture, do not matter. 2 Billion men and women lay starving tonight hoping tomorrow will give them more strength. Man may never find out what REALLY happened, unless of course he discovers time travel - which many believe is impossible using the constraints humanity is given (lifespan, energy etc).
I believe it is important for everyone to express there views and respect other people's views. We will probably NEVER know the true story - perhaps life started when a string in dimension 11 decided to vibrate at a frequency of 78 0000000 Hz thus giving a group of atoms the WILL to survive. It is this "WILL to survive" that science may NEVER explain...
Science already explains the will to survive...that's actually really easy. If a creature isn't born with a will to survive, it would be at quite a survival disadvantage to creatures that do have it. So, it was a naturally selected for advantage, and therefore, it carried one in the gene pool once a mutation occurred to create it. The will to survive is simply a set of death-avoiding behaviours, there's nothing mystical or difficult about it.
Second, I'm tired of hearing people tell me that evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics, which is actually: "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." The entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM - meaning one into which no new energy is inputted. The sun is constantly sending energy to the earth, and we are therefore not in a closed system. Besides, entropy refers to the net unavailability of a system's energy to do work, not order or disorder. I'm not even sure where people got the absurd idea that this totally unrelated law of physics is violated by evolution.
Where did anyone say anything about graveyards? And what makes you think everyone is walking around unhappy and unfulfilled, anyway? Most research finds that about 85% of the world's population is happy (when a subject pool around the world was given devices to report their emotions on a set schedule, 85% of the emotions returned were happy). And there aren't 2 billion starving people, the current estimate is about 1 billion, and the number is dropping.
As for your light argument, I don't see your point at all. There are chemicals and proteins that respond to light, and an organism got a random mutation such that one of its proteins became light sensitive. It's not even a difficult mutation, and it could easily have an immediate survival advantage (IE: increased production of ATP - cellular energy). I don't know how it's anything like all humans suddenly becoming aware of the 7th dimension. One cell having a tiny chemical change from a single mutation that makes one of its proteins change when struck by a photon is miles away from all humans suddenly becoming aware of the 7th dimension.
What facts and truth are we blinding ourselves from? You haven't provided any. If evolution were refuted tomorrow by a series of well-controlled experiments, and it were well-verified, I would have no problem accepting the better-evidenced new theory. I can guarantee it wouldn't be creationism though.
And you didn't name any laws it contradicted, besides the unrelated law of thermodynamics.
No one thinks man has had the brain capacity to create civilization for 100,000 years. Most estimates put it at about 50,000. And it's not as if today's society is obvious and wouldn't take time to develop and advance - we're still advancing today, and I don't see any scientific problem with the rate at which we progressed. There was progression over the whole of the last 50,000 years anyway, it just wasn't as rapid as recent times, because there weren't as many people around, we had not yet developed the scientific method, there were no communication systems, etc.. There were developments in things like agriculture (albeit slowly, and not like today's farming), hunting, tools, societal hierarchies, and of course migration (we traveled to all corners of the world). Besides, civilization developed only a few times, out of all the thousands of societies that existed - it's not as if the concept is obvious.
Also, evolution doesn't discuss the origin of all life, it discusses the origin of species (hence the name of Darwin's classic book) - meaning how life changes to new forms. The jury is still out on how life got started, although there are numerous hypotheses, including some that have been able to create extremely simple forms of life in laboratories. The scientific community is still working on that problem, but I have almost no doubt they will eventually find a comprehensive answer, as they have in the past (look into research on a viral original of life, and on simpler, RNA-based lifeforms).
And why do you bring up that moldy argument about the eye? It's even addressed in the Origin of Species - Darwin brings up the eye argument, then refutes it in the next sentence.
What does the importance of people expressing their views, and life needing to be cherished have to do with evolution?
Study some basic chemistry and biology if you want to know why and how carbon and hydrogen come together to form organic chains, and how they combine to form proteins.
And finally, if not evolution, then what do you suggest?
Hi again. I am sorry I brought up old "garbage". I agree with evolution 100% in terms of the creation of sub species. My point is how did it all start and why we, as humans, have reached civilisation such a long time after obtaining our brain capacity. And also could you please explain the horse evolution for me as the sources that I read from are totally contradictory i.e. the number of ribs jump from x to y and back to x. I believe it is important that we debate these topics. The whole graveyard thing has to do with our philosophy as humans. I never said we're all unhappy, I said sometimes people are so stubborn they forget about everything else thats going on - evolutionists and creationists included. Evolution has a slight chance of remainig a theory for quite a long while until all of its questions are ironed out.
Abiogenesis is another law it contradicts. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with it being a closed system or not it is the principle that complex organisms derived from chaos which evoltion disobeys. According to the theory it should be the other way round. And who designed the laws that chemistry, gravity and physical objects obey. I am not a creationist so please explain.
The "2 billion people" remark was actually used as a hyperbole (exaggeration). I did not look up the value. To correct myself in my stupid error, 852 million people will not have enough food to eat tonight, while 3 billion people live on under $ 2.5 a day.
I find the following extract very apt :
"The second law of thermodynamics has been proven mathematically for thermodynamic systems, where entropy is defined in terms of heat divided by the absolute temperature. The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness. [8] However it is incorrect to apply the second law of thermodynamics to any system that can subjectively be deemed "complex". In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics." [9] This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, evidence indicates that biological systems and obviously the evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net increase in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution."
Source : www.wikipedia.org
Thanks for helping me clarify why 2nd law thermodynamics not applicable. I still want to find out what all the fuss is all about.
Here is a decent explanation of horse evolution. I know very little about it myself though, I've never looked into the evolution of that species in particular. This should also explain why the number of ribs hops around so much in what you read (the multiple branches of species):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part2
You're also correct about the second law. That's another very good reason why it isn't applicable. There are quite a number of reasons actually, and that one equally applies. What they all boil down to, however, is that evolution and thermodynamics have nothing to do with one another.
As for starving people: duly noted. Although remember that the less than $2.50 statistic is meaningless unless it's inflation adjusted to refer to American money (in which case, these people would certainly be starving as well). There are countries where a loaf of bread is 5 cents, etc..
How does it contradict abiogenesis? This is simply a field in biology/chemistry that seeks to find where life came from. It isn't a theory - in fact, abiogenesis contains within it multiple theories. This area of study synergizes really well with evolution, actually.
Also, evolution is not a theory in the popular sense - in day-to-day life, the word "theory" is used to mean "hypothesis." In "theory of evolution" - theory is used in the scientific sense, meaning that is is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world - an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena (according to Princeton University - here: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory - which is in agreement with the definition in all of my textbooks - but I can't link to those). So evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that special relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. are just theories. Which is to say, they're pretty strong, and pretty well-evidenced. One of science's greatest problems is that nature doesn't tell you when you're right - only when you're wrong. Theories are only falsifiable, never provable. Theories become well-evidenced and accepted when they explain and don't contradict a vast body of data, then make accurate predictions about new data that we observe. Evolution has done this for well over a hundred years and survived numerous tests, and found a wide array of applications in the real world. It is only when new data that does not fit a theory is found that the theory must be rejected, and this has not happened with evolution. No controversy exists about evolution whatsoever in the world of science (not in regards to creation versus evolution, anyway), simply because the evidence is so strong. However, it will still always be a "theory" by the scientific definition.
The source of the laws that chemistry, physics, etc. explain is a really fundamental question (which has nothing to do with evolution BTW) that I don't think we'll ever explain. It is beyond the realm of human understanding, and we have yet to come up with a single explanation for it. The favorite approach throughout history has been to say "God did it" - but what created God? This only displaces the problem - instead of a complex universe coming into existence, a vastly complex being did? It's equally impossible to explain.
And what is the everything else that's going on that people are forgetting?
Isn't it sad that 63% of Americans do not accept evolution as fact?
Oh, and a great book to check out is The Counter-Creationism handbook by Mark Isaak . Best $25 I've ever spent at Borders in my life.