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

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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 would disagree with this (I just found this quote on the very first post). There is no way to prove evolution, ergo it is a belief, ergo ID has as much right to be taught in schools as it.

[olorin hamfast]

I believe you to be an agitator. What have yu got against evolution?If you knock it dont use it. in exemplia: tell it to your physician at your next rectal exam. You cant prove that god or anything inthe bible exists other than the bloody parts or the sining and the whoring, so by your own definition, why teach it? Evolution is the basis of all systematics in classification of living organisms. You cannot say 'woe' to evoltuion but then say 'hey that classification system is real handy, billy bob'. It doesnt work that way. GO on a fossil hunt someday and tell me those fossils were made 5000 and seven days. ANd take this argument back to the 18th century, Aristotle.

[Curubethion]

What have you got against creationism?? Or theistic evolution??
I did not say I had anything against evolution. What I have an issue with is atheistic evolution. And no, I don't necessarily believe in Young Earth Creationism. That's a stereotype.
And yes, by my definition, you can exclude creationism from schools. But that would also mean that, to be fair, you would exclude evolution from schools. That sounds fair to me.
BTW...what's wrong with Aristotle? (And he wasn't 18th century!)

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

What have you got against creationism?? Or theistic evolution??
I did not say I had anything against evolution. What I have an issue with is atheistic evolution. And no, I don't necessarily believe in Young Earth Creationism. That's a stereotype.
And yes, by my definition, you can exclude creationism from schools. But that would also mean that, to be fair, you would exclude evolution from schools. That sounds fair to me.
BTW...what's wrong with Aristotle? (And he wasn't 18th century!)

You just like calling people atheist or something and you dont like athiests. Maybe everyone is an athiest. Maybe Jesus was a closet case atheist. I dont know. What I do know is there is no such thing as an athiest evolutionist: the two ists cancel each other out. Evolution is for everyone my friend, even Gollum. Remember him? Creationism is unfortunately the booby prize for people with closed minds. Sorry forthat one, but its true. Creationism is for sentimentalists who like the idea that the earth was made in 7 days. Im sorry again, its just not FEASIBLE. It is a convenient mistake and now a lie designed to allow the scripture to continue, to have teeth, fear factor extrordinaire. Not that I dont like the bible, it just does not apply anymore. Im not afraid. Evolution stands alone and together: with Physicists and Hindus, Muslims, Jewish People, Druids and so forth. The idea that man is the center of the universe is the main reason all the earths resources are being plundered and our great mother earth is dying and will soon look like MARS(the planet). Inthe bible, man comes first then women, then the animals and mushrooms and so forth. SO it implies that we are doing gods work by ruining evrything for our own use. Well, my curious friend, back when the bible was written, there seemed to be a plenty of everything around for our common use: trees to build our houses, sheep for rack of lamb, magic mushromms for imagining things unreal and saintly, water for laundry and to pee in, and it all was very convenient to just take; in the old west we call it frontierism. Go to a wild natural area, plunder it to smitherines and move on to the next area and plunder that the same way, HAlelujia. But that approach is no longer that practical. we are running out of places to plunder.. out with the old and in with the new. Like I say Dr, SJ Gould from Harvard is your answer and our salvation, my friend not Dr.Phil
O kee do kee?

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

What I do know is there is no such thing as an athiest evolutionist: the two ists cancel each other out.

So if you're an atheist, you can't believe in evolution? Then what do you believe in?

Creationism is unfortunately the booby prize for people with closed minds. Sorry forthat one, but its true. Creationism is for sentimentalists who like the idea that the earth was made in 7 days. Im sorry again, its just not FEASIBLE.

Ok, you're talking about literal fundamentalist creationism. I am NOT a literal fundamentalist. I make no assumptions about the length of creation. BTW...if you're talking about a deity, is there such a thing as non-feasible?

You just like calling people atheist or something and you dont like athiests.

The reason I brought up atheism is to distinguish atheistic evolution from theistic evolution. The two are inexonerable and totally anathema to each other.

It is a convenient mistake and now a lie designed to allow the scripture to continue

How does it allow scripture to continue? Doesn't scripture continue on its own.
And please cut the ad hominem arguments.