Evidence for Evolution

[jerseydevil]

Since I am not allowed to post in the "Evidence for Creationism and against Evolution" thread and because the subject matter was recently restricted - I figured we needed a thread that talked about evolution and why creationism is junk science.

SquintyEyedSouthern had posted something that was very good I thought on the Creationism only thread...

http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.ph...486#post459486

All living things change over time. This can be proven with simple life forms in any lab in the world any day of the week. The reason last year’s flu shot is not helping you this year is because the flu virus has evolved. This kind of evolution can be demonstrated in any good lab. It is a fact not a theory.

The only thing a creationist can argue is that more complex life forms (which have much slower life cycles which are unobservable in real time) are somehow exempt from a phenomena that can be demonstrated to be true of those with faster cycles like germs viruses etc.The only problem is there is no evidence that any life form is exempt from this process. There is also a mountain of evidence in the fossil record which shows all kinds of transitional forms of all species of plant and animal life which would support the idea that complex life is not exempt.

The only opposition to evolution comes from people who have a conflicting view of the world based on a religious belief. There is no non-religeous opposition to evolution. That should tell you something.


Remember science is a method, not a belief.

Evolution is based solely on scientific research - while creationism requires the belief in god and does not fit into what the scientific evidence shows us.

I want to hear from people why they support evolution and disagree with creationism.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

I cite the "red queen" effect, or "evolutionary arms race"
In 'alice in wondrland', the red queen tells alice that to stay where she is, she must run as fast a she can, this is where the name for the theory comes from

Giraffes and Acacias
Acacias were once a low growing shrub fed upon by the ancestors of giraffes
eventually, the acacias with particularly sharp thorns were not eaten, thos that had smaller thorns got eaten, resulting in all acacias having spiky thorns. those giraffes with extremely long tongues were the only ones that managed to get to the succelent leaves, and survive. only those acacias with longer trunks would survive the giraffe attacks, then only those giraffes with longer necks manage to reach the succelent leaves on top of the trees, thus we arrive at the stage we have now - tall, spiky acacias, and giraffes with long necks and long tongues.

[jerseydevil]

LCoU - in response to your post I wanted to post my example of how evolution from one species to another works, which I posted back in 2002.

Novemebr 9, 2002
http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.ph...797#post143797

This is one way evolution works...

Say there was a lot of competition for food in the early oceans with most fish swimming in the middle depths - but nothing really occupying the lower depths. Some fish start to swim down to the ocean floor and pick up the scraps. After some time they really don't need their fins anymore - and the fish that are born with flat fins that would have been considered deformities and would have died in the upper depths, survive better on the floor of the ocean. Through successive generations these deformaties become more pronounced because having flat fins on the ocean floor allow them to walk which is better for life down there - but now they can no longer swim.

This new flat finned fish eventually migrates to the shore and starts to move up through the low surf. Some of them walk out of the water - but they can't survive - because they still have gills. Some of these fish can develop a deformity that allows them to breath for a short time on land - through successive generations this "deformatity" gets passed on to it's offspring and becomes a standard part of the fish. These new fish evetually are able to crawl out of the water and live. You can see this fish today called a lung fish.

There is another fish that was very scary this summer in Maryland called the Northern Snakehead - ABCNews - They're Here... Two Unusual Fish Invade U.S. Waters. (I had several Lion Fish - they're a really cool fish, I especially like the Fu Man Chu Lion Fish.)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

next case study:
archosaurs - dinosauria - archaeopteryx/avimimus/syntarsis - birds

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

next case study:
archosaurs - dinosauria - archaeopteryx/avimimus/syntarsis - birds

Here I'll repost the graph you liked which showed the evolution from dinosaurs to birds.

Here is bird fossil sequences...

Evolutionary Transitionals: From Dinosaurs to Feathered Birds

In recent years dinosaur and avian taxonomy has benefited immensely from the extremely detailed fossils unearthed in the fine sandstones of the Liaoning province of China. This cladogram shows the evolutionary relationships within the Theropod Dinosaurs which, along with the Sauropod and Ornithischian Dinosaurs, make up the great class of Earth's dominant animals that went extinct 65 million years ago. That is, all except for the Euornithes, the only group to survive the environmental disaster resulting from the impact on Earth of an immense asteroid or meteor. These have evolved to become our 10,000 species of living birds -- our modern dinos.

All of the individuals and groups shown here are transitionals between the reptilian Dinosaurs and modern birds. Asterisks indicate fossils for which primitive (*) or modern (***) feathers are now known. As paleontologists find additional new species, and better examples of presently known ones, it may be anticipated that the great majority, if not all, of the Theropods will prove to have been feathered creatures in transition.

The evolution of modern birds is not just the story of the development of feathers. Many parts of the avian anatomy have changed from those of ancestral forms. By studying the bones of fossils, such as the series of pelvic bones shown below, scientists can determine changes in the size of muscles and their attachment points. In feature after feature the anatomical changes observed are consistent with theories of speciation and descent with modification from common ancestors.

You can go to this site -
Dinosauricon
Sinosauropteryx

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Since I am not allowed to post in the "Evidence for Creationism and against Evolution" thread ...

Completely untrue
or at least completely untrue as far as I have seen. I saw FM ask you to stop repeating your question, that's all. Did he ask you to stop posting in the thread? I didn't see that.

I want to hear from people why they support evolution and disagree with creationism.

I think many aspects of the theory of evolution are observeable and can be considered scientifically "proven". Chrys's example is a good example. If a species has features that make it adapt better to its environment, and these features can be inherited, then it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the features will be more likely to show up in the next generation because the parent generation had more survivors that were then able to breed and produce offspring.

Interesting that you chose giraffes, Chrys, because just for a note of history, when Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", he believed in pangenes (that use and disuse of features will pass on to the next generation). In chapter 5, "Laws of Variation", he states his belief in pangenes and I believe mentions a giraffe somewhere. Of course, pangenes were later proved false, and evolutionists didn't discard their theory; they chose another mechanism, which is referred to as beneficial mutations. Good example of modifying the mechanism while adhering to the original idea - perfectly good thing to do.

Another interesting part of the theory of evolution is that species will sometimes vary enough so that they can't breed anymore - very interesting and completely observeable!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Completely untrue
or at least completely untrue as far as I have seen. I saw FM ask you to stop repeating your question, that's all. Did he ask you to stop posting in the thread? I didn't see that.

It isn't untrue - you want to basically control the conversation there. Anyway since I left your thread and dropped it - I hope you didn't come in here to continue the argument.

[edit]Hey Jonathan you can take me off ignore now. (that is if you even see this. )[/edit]

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think many aspects of the theory of evolution are observeable and can be considered scientifically "proven". Chrys's example is a good example. If a species has features that make it adapt better to its environment, and these features can be inherited, then it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the features will be more likely to show up in the next generation because the parent generation had more survivors that were then able to breed and produce offspring..

...

Another interesting part of the theory of evolution is that species will sometimes vary enough so that they can't breed anymore - very interesting and completely observeable!

if we have enough variation, then we get a completely new species, and of course when we have enough variation again, BAM! a new genus

lets think about primates for a minute

homo erectus - Mr. "hey i can walk upright!"
homo habilis, great maker of tools
Homo Sapiens S. - Us guys

Gorilla - simple tools
chimpanzee - great maker of tools, goes to war, simple communication
bonobo - maker of complex tools, more advanced communication

it is also interesting to note that bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees (our nearest relatives), are almost exclusively bisexual, and operate in tribes, based on hereditary family hierachy

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It isn't untrue - you want to basically control the conversation there. Anyway since I left your thread and dropped it - I hope you didn't come in here to continue the argument.

Jerseydevil, am I correct in what I'm hearing? You're dismissing yourself from the "Evidence for Creationism" thread, and now dismissing RÃ*an from the "Evidence for Evolution," thread?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Jerseydevil, am I correct in what I'm hearing? You're dismissing yourself from the "Evidence for Creationism" thread, and now dismissing RÃ*an from the "Evidence for Evolution," thread?

The former is correct - the latter is only correct if Rian doesn't want to post according to MY rules as thread starter.

[Edit]Which is the following... This thread is ONLY to discuss SCIENTIFIC evidence on WHY evolution is supported and the SCIENTIFIC evidence on why creationism is not. It is not to talk about religion or to talk about supporting creationism or knocking on evolution.
[/edit]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

[Edit]Which is the following... This thread is ONLY to discuss SCIENTIFIC evidence on WHY evolution is supported and the SCIENTIFIC evidence on why creationism is not. It is not to talk about religion or to talk about supporting creationism or knocking on evolution.
[/edit]

So no debate is allowed. Correct?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So no debate is allowed. Correct?

We're talking about scientific evidence for evolution. You have the creation thread to talk about creationism and god. However, contrary to your belief - debate is allowed here. There could be multiple ways of reading the data to support evolution. There just isn't relgious debate or debate about creationism in this thread. I hope you will realize that debate can be more than what you feel it is (evolution vs creationism).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

However, contrary to your belief - debate is allowed here.

I don't understand what this means - could you please explain?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't understand what this means - could you please explain?

I odn't kwno what there is to explain - Lief had said that there was no debate allowed in this thread. However Debate is allowed - just this thread is evolutioncentric - while the other is creationcentric.

[Rían]

Oh, I see - thanks I misunderstood.

[Coney II]

Wow, is this wot the 'moot has become?

A place where the last few regular posters can't even discuss Creationism v's evolution without splitting off and creating duplicate threads (with the handy dandy option of the thread creator being "in control" of the discussion ) because they feel they can't get their points appreciated on existing threads ....... so sad

big news folks....there is no definitive proof that evolution or creationism is the 100% certifiable answer to how/why life developed on this planet......if you do find something, let the press know, yer'll be rich beyond yer wildest dreams

I wonder why you felt that one of the longest running threads (which always had a friendly feel, and the occasional interesting post) needed to be turned into yet another bitter angry "debate"

I remember when this place had an actual feel of being a community.....yer all seem to be barely civil to each other these days...but if that's the kinda atmosphere ya enjoy, more power to ya

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Coney II

Wow, is this wot the 'moot has become?

A place where the last few regular posters can't even discuss Creationism v's evolution without splitting off and creating duplicate threads (with the handy dandy option of the thread creator being "in control" of the discussion ) because they feel they can't get their points appreciated on existing threads ....... so sad

big news folks....there is no definitive proof that evolution or creationism is the 100% certifiable answer to how/why life developed on this planet......if you do find something, let the press know, yer'll be rich beyond yer wildest dreams

I wonder why you felt that one of the longest running threads (which always had a friendly feel, and the occasional interesting post) needed to be turned into yet another bitter angry "debate"

I remember when this place had an actual feel of being a community.....yer all seem to be barely civil to each other these days...but if that's the kinda atmosphere ya enjoy, more power to ya

I see you are back - as usual nothing to say but to critize me. What - did your old posse get a hold of you and told you your help was required or something? I see you also made snide comments about me in the rollyeyes thread too. Oh well. If you have a problem with what entmoot has becoime - then why the hell are you here? Oh yeah - I already answered that - your posse contacted you.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
So no debate is allowed. Correct?


We're talking about scientific evidence for evolution. You have the creation thread to talk about creationism and god. However, contrary to your belief - debate is allowed here.

When I believe something, it's not normal for me to put a question mark on the end of it .

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

When I believe something, it's not normal for me to put a question mark on the end of it .

You made a statement first - implying that was the case. The normal way to ask it as a question is "Is debating allowed here?" Then I would have merely said "yes". You didn't ask a question though - you were making a statement.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You made a statement first - implying that was the case. The normal way to ask it as a question is "Is debating allowed here?" Then I would have merely said "yes". You didn't ask a question though - you were making a statement.

Okay, so you're just not used to my way of speaking . I often talk that way at home. "The laundry is done. Correct? The toys were taken upstairs earlier, correct?" That's just me . . . It's actually taken somewhat from a Hebrew manner of speaking. I was reading a book with these Jews in it, and they frequently stated things as facts, asking "nu?" at the end. It was after reading that book that I started this particular abnormality of speech. I'll stop wasting your "Evidence for Evolution" room now. (stops writing the off-topic and slightly boring post)