Evolution

[Guest GhostRanger]

As some of you may or may not know, for a long while I've been a strong supporter of evolution. Recently, and completely unaffected by my religious beliefs, I've begun to question my own support for the theory.

 

 

 

Don't flame or anything about how "evolution is fact and I'm stupid if I don't know that." I don't care about that. That's not an intelligent response and that won't help me or anyone else. Don't flame me for being a Christian because as far as I'm concerned, that's completely irrelevant to this entire thread.

 

 

 

What I want to know, is from people who honestly know a good deal about the subject, is what proof do we have for evolution? There seems to be no evidence in fossils of a gradual evolution of species, and I've found no record of species to species evolution. Only variations of a species that helps it survive such as noted in Darwin's observations.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing against evolution, I'm trying to find answers. Any help?

[yomom1919]

well, scientists did find that either a shark or a dolphins (i forget) dorsal fin is becoming longer on average.

[Random]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

an overview

 

 

 

 

 

This is quite a helpful website regarding Evolution too I've heard:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Guest GhostRanger]

well, scientists did find that either a shark or a dolphins (i forget) dorsal fin is becoming longer on average.

 

 

 

That's not a species changing from one to another.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

an overview

 

 

 

 

 

This is quite a helpful website regarding Evolution too I've heard:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/

 

 

 

I've been to the Wikipedia site and I don't find it helpful. It says fossils help prove evolution but there are no records that support the idea of things gradually evolving. It cites the Hawthorne fly as an example but the Hawthorne fly merely adapts, it doesn't change to a completely new species.

 

 

 

If fossils can help prove evolution then why don't we see fossils showing a gradual change from one species to another? Why do we not have a single fossil showiwng the transition from one species to another, yet we have plenty of fossils showing different species from all different time periods? If everyone evolved to get where it is, certainly we would have transition fossils showing that, yet we haven't found any.

 

 

 

What is our evidence for actual evolution, and not merely evidence that supports the idea that species adapt to their enviroment?

[Adam007]

There's plenty of evidence - you just have to find it if you don't believe it yourself on the internet.

 

Fossils don't actually hold a good case for evolution. The reason is because evolution occurs with punctuated equilibrium, meaning that huge evolutionary bursts happen at once from some pressure to evolve and do it relatively quickly (now it still is over many, many years, key word being relatively), with huge gaps of time inbetween. That's why fossils don't exactly prove evolution.

 

As I said, I don't remember specific examples of evolution so you have to look some up yourself, but isn't it kind of hard to see a fault in it? All species have mutations. When a species rarely gets a good mutation that gives it an advantage, it has a higher likelyhood of living over the other animals in its species. It passes this mutation down to its children, which in turn keep passing it down, and gradually the adaptation spreads dominantly and evolution occurs - it's happening now, and since we see adaptations all around us, it's kind of hard to argue it.

[logic-is-overrated]

I don't know anything about evolution but I assume you are referring to transistional fossils. If not, then ignore me. If so then this is the best I can help you with: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

 

 

Here's the intro:

 

I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned. Version 6.0 of the FAQ has been almost entirely rewritten, with:

 

 

 

A completely rewritten introduction & conclusion, discussing what "transitional" means, why gaps occur, and what the fossil record shows.

 

A greatly expanded list of "chains of genera" for most groups, especially mammals.

 

References for documented species-to-species fossil transitions, mostly for mammals.

 

Explicit mention of the notable remaining gaps in the fossil record.

[punk4ever]

I've been to the Wikipedia site and I don't find it helpful. It says fossils help prove evolution but there are no records that support the idea of things gradually evolving. It cites the Hawthorne fly as an example but the Hawthorne fly merely adapts, it doesn't change to a completely new species.

 

 

 

If fossils can help prove evolution then why don't we see fossils showing a gradual change from one species to another? Why do we not have a single fossil showiwng the transition from one species to another, yet we have plenty of fossils showing different species from all different time periods? If everyone evolved to get where it is, certainly we would have transition fossils showing that, yet we haven't found any.

 

 

 

What is our evidence for actual evolution, and not merely evidence that supports the idea that species adapt to their enviroment?

 

 

 

Well the fact of the matter is, adaptation is evolution. One good example of this is when you look at the okapi and the giraffe.

 

 

 

The giraffe is dominant in Africa now because of the aridness of the environment. However, fossil evidence as well as DNA evidence (I believe, but don't quote me on this) has traced that the giraffe developed from the okapi. You see, before Africa was the way we know it to this day, it was a place of lush green fields and much nutrition. As the days became hotter, the lush fields withered away and the only source of sustenance could be found atop the high trees. This is what gave one okapi an advantage over the other. You see, in order for evolution to 'occur' Darwin stated that there need be:

 

 

 

-The ability of a population to expand is infinite, while the resources available to sustain said population are finite. This dynamic causes a struggle for existence among individuals as they compete for resources.

 

 

 

-Organisms vary in their physical qualities; these variations allow some members to reproduce more successfully than others.

 

 

 

-These variations are inherited by offspring from their parents.

 

 

 

So, just like in the human population today, there were some okapii who had larger necks than their peers. The environment around them favored those okapi who had larger necks because they were the ones who could reach the nutricious food and be able to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. Over many, many years, the large-necked became more and more dominant within the population and, thus, practically wiped out their peers with smaller necks. That is how we basically got the giraffe. In fact, there is only one known location in Africa to this day which still has the original okapi, everwhere else you just see giraffes.

 

 

 

What I'm trying to say with this is basically that evolution happens around us all the time. We will not notice it before it spans over so many years that it almost seems elusive. In fact, there are two theories to evolution which are still being argued upon. One is called the "punctuated equilibirium" theory, and the other is "gradualism." The punctuated equilibrium theory states that evolution occurs in short spurts of time, like an earthquake affecting a population or a drought occuring. However, the gradualist theory (which is more accepted scientifically) states that change is happening every day and that it takes time to realize.

 

 

 

One read I would recommend is Life's Little Joke by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a pretty intricate read but well worth it :)

[Guest GhostRanger]

There's plenty of evidence - you just have to find it if you don't believe it yourself on the internet.

 

Fossils don't actually hold a good case for evolution. The reason is because evolution occurs with punctuated equilibrium, meaning that huge evolutionary bursts happen at once from some pressure to evolve and do it relatively quickly (now it still is over many, many years, key word being relatively), with huge gaps of time inbetween. That's why fossils don't exactly prove evolution.

 

As I said, I don't remember specific examples of evolution so you have to look some up yourself, but isn't it kind of hard to see a fault in it? All species have mutations. When a species rarely gets a good mutation that gives it an advantage, it has a higher likelyhood of living over the other animals in its species. It passes this mutation down to its children, which in turn keep passing it down, and gradually the adaptation spreads dominantly and evolution occurs - it's happening now, and since we see adaptations all around us, it's kind of hard to argue it.

 

 

 

I can totally agree with the idea that random mutations occur and that sometimes these random mutations can be beneficial. But what evidence is there that these random mutations cause a leap from one species to another?

 

 

 

One thing that concerns me is that no one anywhere has ever been able to explain how an eye "randomly" evolved from a group of cells. Darwin himself acknowledged that he has no idea how an eye came to be. He proposed the idea that light sensitive cells eventually mutated to form an eye, but that theory assumes light sensitive cells exist. In order for light sensitive cells to exist, they would have to be a random mutation that is beneficial enough to continue to be passed down. That doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe practically disproved this whole notion of "random mutations" being passed down to ultimately create humans. The flagellum (a bacterial motor) depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The absence of just ONE of these parts makes the flagellum completely useless. Animals cell's have what's called a cilium and it's composed over around 200 protein parts just like the flagellum (doesn't work with them all.) Behe demonstrated that it's mathematically impossible for all 30 parts of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the cilium) to be created through numerous, random, motifications that evolution entails. It makes sense for the proteins to randomlly mutate, but without the other 29 (or 199) the protein is completely useless, so why would it be considered a superior gene and be passed down until the other 29 proteins randomly mutate (and get passed down despite their uselessness) and then they start to work together.

 

 

 

I'm not saying I don't understand adaptation, but I see absoultely no proof of a species adapting so much and so perfectly that it evolves into a completely different species.

 

 

 

EDIT: I posted while punk and logic posted. =)

 

 

 

One read I would recommend is Life's Little Joke by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a pretty intricate read but well worth it :)

 

 

 

My question about Gould is that he himself even said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

 

 

 

Are inferences from animals that have similar parts enough to prove evolution of any kind?

 

 

 

@Logic: I'm reading. :P

[punk4ever]

One read I would recommend is Life's Little Joke by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a pretty intricate read but well worth it :)

 

 

 

My question about Gould is that he himself even said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

 

 

 

Are inferences from animals that have similar parts enough to prove evolution of any kind?

 

 

 

@Logic: I'm reading. :P

 

 

 

Well all we can is inference because those tips are what we see today. It is highly complex to follow a species through its evolutionary stages, because, you see, "At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of [horse] evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species." The changes are not as apparent as if one day a species grew a third eye to help see it better. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together is what scientists work on every day. Even right now, the missing link between humans and apes is a species of "man-ape" which was thought to have existed but no evidence has been found yet.

 

 

 

It's all substantial, but isn't faith the same as well? The only difference with science is that more of it is tangible. Okay I'm getting into that religion/science debate so I better back off, haha.

[Guest GhostRanger]

One read I would recommend is Life's Little Joke by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a pretty intricate read but well worth it :)

 

 

 

My question about Gould is that he himself even said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

 

 

 

Are inferences from animals that have similar parts enough to prove evolution of any kind?

 

 

 

@Logic: I'm reading. :P

 

 

 

Well all we can is inference because those tips are what we see today. It is highly complex to follow a species through its evolutionary stages, because, you see, "At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of [horse] evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species." The changes are not as apparent as if one day a species grew a third eye to help see it better. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together is what scientists work on every day. Even right now, the missing link between humans and apes is a species of "man-ape" which was thought to have existed but no evidence has been found yet.

 

 

 

It's all substantial, but isn't faith the same as well? The only difference with science is that more of it is tangible. Okay I'm getting into that religion/science debate so I better back off, haha.

 

 

 

We haven't found the link from one thing to another (such as ape to human) - haven't we only found evidence of one species evolving just to a more advanced form of itself?

 

 

 

I guess my question is, at this point, it seems like to make the leap and say that everyone evolved from a couple of cells; that species evolved into other species, seems exactly what you said it was - a leap of faith. I don't see anything tangible to say that monkeys turned into apes. That horses turned into something else except a different kind of horse. Do you see what I'm saying?

[punk4ever]

One read I would recommend is Life's Little Joke by Stephen Jay Gould. It's a pretty intricate read but well worth it :)

 

 

 

My question about Gould is that he himself even said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

 

 

 

Are inferences from animals that have similar parts enough to prove evolution of any kind?

 

 

 

@Logic: I'm reading. :P

 

 

 

Well all we can is inference because those tips are what we see today. It is highly complex to follow a species through its evolutionary stages, because, you see, "At high resolution, the gradualistic picture of [horse] evolution becomes a complex bush of overlapping, closely related species." The changes are not as apparent as if one day a species grew a third eye to help see it better. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together is what scientists work on every day. Even right now, the missing link between humans and apes is a species of "man-ape" which was thought to have existed but no evidence has been found yet.

 

 

 

It's all substantial, but isn't faith the same as well? The only difference with science is that more of it is tangible. Okay I'm getting into that religion/science debate so I better back off, haha.

 

 

 

We haven't found the link from one thing to another (such as ape to human) - haven't we only found evidence of one species evolving just to a more advanced form of itself?

 

 

 

I guess my question is, at this point, it seems like to make the leap and say that everyone evolved from a couple of cells; that species evolved into other species, seems exactly what you said it was - a leap of faith. I don't see anything tangible to say that monkeys turned into apes. That horses turned into something else except a different kind of horse. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

 

 

Well I think what you're looking for is a DRASTIC change in appearance of a species. All I can say is that this happens, but over a large period of time. The horse (millions of years ago), for example, was roughly three feet tall, but today it may range 10+ feet in some cases. It also started off as a toed animal and that toe 'evolved' into a hoof. If you looked at a picture of a horse (what is suspectedly looked like) from ages ago it looks nothing like horses today. It resembles the size of a dog in-fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You would never expect that a prong-toed animal the size of a dog could turn into something such as the horse we have today.

[Nanosauromo]

About the "lack of fossil evidence" thing, keep in mind that less than 1% of animals get fossilized after they die.

[yomom1919]

well, scientists did find that either a shark or a dolphins (i forget) dorsal fin is becoming longer on average.

 

 

 

That's not a species changing from one to another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

how do you think animals evolved in the first place? did they just change in a day? no, they changed over thousands and millions of years. a dorsal fin growing longer may be a first step to a completely different species.

 

 

 

look at the evolution of reptiles, and look at modern reptiles. they basically all look the same. except there are thousands of species.

 

 

 

and thanks to scientists documenting this type of change, humans eventually, over thousands of years, will have proof of evolution, even though you and I probably wont be around to see it.

[dusqi]

 

One thing that concerns me is that no one anywhere has ever been able to explain how an eye "randomly" evolved from a group of cells. Darwin himself acknowledged that he has no idea how an eye came to be. He proposed the idea that light sensitive cells eventually mutated to form an eye, but that theory assumes light sensitive cells exist. In order for light sensitive cells to exist, they would have to be a random mutation that is beneficial enough to continue to be passed down. That doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

 

I recently read the answer to this in a book by Richard Dawkins, called The Ancestor's Tale. The book begins with humans, and then goes back in time, looking at where humans split from other species - so at first apes, then monkeys, etc. - all the way back to single celled organisms. If I'm honest though, I don't remember the answer, only that I was satisfied with it at the time!

 

 

 

I recommend the book, it was published in 2005 so is quite recent, and is written in an entertaining style. If you haven't heard of Richard Dawkins though, he's not a fan of religion - especially creationism, so there are some quips in there that might offend you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is also an argument for evolution that I thought was quite irrefutable when I researched it for the last evolution debate that tip.it had:

 

 

 

 

Okay, some hard evidence. Look at this picture showing the evolution of humans from apes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viruses like AIDS are passed down through generations by adding a DNA copy of themselves to the host's genome. So you'd have the information to make a human, as well as the AIDS virus information. However, not all viruses like this will cause death, some are harmless.

 

 

 

Approximately 1% of human DNA is composed of these viruses which have added themselves to our genome (some 30,000 viruses). The arrows on the picture show when some of these viruses added themselves to our genome. All branches after the insertion point (those to the top right) carry the virus. Once a virus DNA has inserted itself into the DNA of an organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism. Thus showing that we are descendents of apes. The chances of us randomly getting the same inserted viruses in the same DNA spots as monkeys, but no other organisms, are extremely low.

 

 

 

This comes from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

 

 

There are 29+ other evidences for evolution there.

[kazarin]

Well, you've got to remember that evolution takes thousands, millions, billions of years.

 

And only through select breeding, will evolution occur naturally.

 

Proof? That's hard. And a question for you, do you believe in creationalism?

 

For all christian's have the Adam and Eve creationalism ideals. But putting that aside. My personal proof of evolution is simply human intelligence. Our brains have developed increasingly within a two thousand year period. Not just our technology, but we are able to think and process things more quickly and rapidly. Our intelligence has gone up, but a downfall to technology, our strength and stamina has gone down. Evolution. Adapatation. And select breeding are all causes of such. There's a number of different breed within a species.

 

The wolf, for example.

 

The Grey Wolf resides in forests, pined habitats. Their coat and dark colors show this. Through adapation of thousands of years.

 

The Mexican Wolf resides in desert habitats. Brown and tanish coats, short hair.. Slender forms.. through adaptation and evolution show this.

 

The Arctic Wolf resides in cold climates. Heavy white coating shows such.

 

 

 

That's my litte bit.. this is my own personal exsistance of evolution. Take it or leave it, really..

[Evadek]

Here's are some of the most common pieces of evidence supporting (but not proving) evolution.

 

 

 

Humans have a tail bone

 

There are different races of humans

 

We have a third undeveloped eyelid

 

We have gills in fetal development

 

There are genetic defects

 

Boa Constrictors have hip bones and undeveloped hind legs

 

Manatees have finger nails on their fins

[Death_By_Pod]

I don't understand how these debates even continue when resources like http://www.talkorigins.org exist. Every question you have can be answered with full references; if anything is missing you could probably email them your concerns. Have a good read of that site (start at the FAQ page, it provides to answers of common questions), if you have any further questions you can post them here if you like. I'm don't study biology (I study Physics, Mathematics and History and Philosophy of Science), but my scientific background allows me to understand principles of evolution at a reasonable level.

[Lionheart_0]

Here's are some of the most common pieces of evidence supporting (but not proving) evolution.

 

 

 

There are different races of humans-so do you mean there are subspecies of humans just like there is subspecies of dogs?

 

We have a third undeveloped eyelid-huh, where?

 

We have gills in fetal development-breathing... through our knecks?

 

 

 

 

Yes i belive evolution all the way, but im just wondering about these....

[Evadek]

Here's are some of the most common pieces of evidence supporting (but not proving) evolution.

 

 

 

There are different races of humans-so do you mean there are subspecies of humans just like there is subspecies of dogs?

 

We have a third undeveloped eyelid-huh, where?

 

We have gills in fetal development-breathing... through our knecks?

 

 

 

 

Yes i belive evolution all the way, but im just wondering about these....

 

 

 

I dunno, i took them from an atheism site

[yomom1919]

Here's are some of the most common pieces of evidence supporting (but not proving) evolution.

 

 

 

There are different races of humans-so do you mean there are subspecies of humans just like there is subspecies of dogs?

 

We have a third undeveloped eyelid-huh, where?

 

We have gills in fetal development-breathing... through our knecks?

 

 

 

 

Yes i belive evolution all the way, but im just wondering about these....

 

 

 

those are all true.. except i duno about the eyelid.

 

it would be cool if we kept our gills \ . and our tail.

[the_blob23]

 

those are all true.. except i duno about the eyelid.

 

 

 

 

The eyelid that you speak of is called the "nictating membrane." It is the diminutive pink bump in the eye that serves no functional purpose. As homo sapiens evolved, it was rendered redundant and thus it is found in its current capacity.

[insane]

I don't understand how these debates even continue when resources like http://www.talkorigins.org exist. Every question you have can be answered with full references; if anything is missing you could probably email them your concerns.

 

 

 

That could be said about any thread on this off-topic discussion forum.

 

Need advice on talking to girls? Go to [insert expert site here] and read their FAQ, and email them... etc, etc.

 

 

 

Just because a certain issue is 100% decided in your mind doesn't mean we should all just stop talking about it. So, discuss away!

[Death_By_Pod]

 

That could be said about any thread on this off-topic discussion forum.

 

Need advice on talking to girls? Go to [insert expert site here] and read their FAQ, and email them... etc, etc.

 

 

 

Just because a certain issue is 100% decided in your mind doesn't mean we should all just stop talking about it. So, discuss away!

 

 

 

Advice on relationships, politics, religion, what mp3 player to buy etc... are subjective topics and have no definite answer; evolution is objective and does have a definite answer. I see no reason why I need to restate the facts, when another website can do a far better job at it then anyone else here. What do you want me to do, copy and paste it here?

 

 

 

I never said we shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t discuss the topic, I even asked for questions in the post ("if you have any further questions you can post them here if you like"). I was directing people to talk-origins so I wouldn't have to type up the same thing over and over and for people to be able to contact people who know a lot about evolution.

[yomom1919]

 

those are all true.. except i duno about the eyelid.

 

 

 

 

The eyelid that you speak of is called the "nictating membrane." It is the diminutive pink bump in the eye that serves no functional purpose. As alternative living sapiens evolved, it was rendered redundant and thus it is found in its current capacity.

 

 

 

wow. cool.

[Scruffy5389]

I actually remember reading in the Boston Globe within the past four months or so: scientists discovered the fossil of some sort of fish that was a perfect missing link between two species. I saw it and said, "wow, there's great evidence for evolution, I should keep that or something," and then I forgot about it. :(

 

 

 

 

 

Is anyone here familiar with the book The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell? I haven't actually read it, but I've heard it has an interesting theory. Basically, Gladwell talks about how in any system, change occurs very quickly in short bursts, followed by long periods of perfect stability.

 

 

 

Gladwell was talking generally about all sorts of different types of systems, but it can be applied easily to evolution. Imagine a community of organisms that have adapted to live together, compete and consume each other. They are perfectly adapted, so no one species has any dramatic advantage over another. Therefore, very little change happens for millions of years.

 

 

 

However, amidst all this seemingly perfect balance, small disruptions cause small adaptations to occur. The system is not disrupted, no new species are produced, but these small changes add up. Eventually, all these small changes add up, and all at once, the system reaches (drum roll) the tipping point. Something drastic happens. Practically instantly (on a very large timeline) a new species is evolved, or something complex like an eye or sonar is developed. After this brief upheaval, the system finds a new balance.

 

 

 

I can't really do this theory justice, because I don't really know what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

It makes sense, though. Say we're following the evolution of one species into another and into another etc. Of course we won't find a "halfway" species, because such an animal is, well, halfway. It is out of balance, and it won't stick around for long. The system it is in has to find a new balance, and this is an extremely fast process.

 

 

 

Thus, the fossil record will only show a series of species; it will not show a slow morph from one to another. It would be just incredibly lucky to find a fossil from one of those transitional species. Transitional species only occur in tiny windows between long periods of stasis.

 

 

 

Again, I haven't even read this book, but if I understand it right, it seems like an excellent explanation (some might say convenient excuse :P ) for why we can't find transitional species.