List your best Scientific proof for Evolution

[jrl0469]

List the best Scientific proof for evolution that you "the board members" know of...

[Fluffybunny]

As Aquatus1, Talon or Seraphina would be much more qualified to do this than I am, I doubt I can do it justice, but I will dust off the cobwebs in my mind to see if I can recall college sciences courses...

Let me preface my comments by giving you my definition of what evolution is and is not. I take this quote from talkorigins.org as it is the closest definition I have to what I was taught in college many moons ago:

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers

"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

That being said there are many different items to choose from, but I will pick one:

Archaeopteryx., as it is a good example of a transitional fossil, having both the qualities of a reptile and a bird.

[Cobalt Demon]

If god actually make human in one day. Which specie of ancient human was the one god made? Because if god made human (Adam and Eve) then that mean they would have been some kind of rodents that primiate evolved from. So how could you actually seperate one specie of human from ancient one and say "this is true human"? Hell if sciencist do their research closely on a body of human from 100 years ago they will notice some small different between them and presentday human!

To seperate one human from ancient human is like as saying one race isn't a human.

[SilverCougar]

King Cheetahs. That is evolution before our eyes.

[Hotoke]

all living things must come from another living thing. no usch thing as instanr creation

all living creatures are different from each other. many animals have a internal skeletal structure. these are called vertebrates and some animals dont have a internal skeletal structure these are called invertebrates. smells like evo

fossils are a good example for evo. the first fossils were that of simple creatures but you will not believe that because carbon dating made a few errors and many things correct. as we go further to older fossils you can see that life got more and more complicated. they came from the simple forms

some mosquitos became immune against pesticides used against them and sometmes bacteria develope resistances against anibiotics

[Stellar]

NO no fluffy... close this thread please. He still hasnt posted in Aquatus' thread. I will not start debating evolution when I asked him to prove that creationism is science. I will debate evolution with him if he makes an attempt to prove creationism is science.

[jenk]

*is about to list a huge amount of proof such as carbon dating and genetics but decides to be lazy and lets others do it* It's to early in the morning for this. If this is still going later I will post.

[_hAiLO_]

Carbon Dating has been attacked and is considered an undependent source for 100% hardcore evidential backup!!!

Link 1

Link2

Had to .

And close this thread! Start nothing but controversy, and Aquatus1 has already won a debate over Creatinism vs. Evolution against Saucy, so go and read that here.

[aquatus1]

So who ever said carbon dating was 100% accurate? Nothing in science is that good.

jrl0469, are we having that debate you promised?

[Bizeebutt]

Personal Favorite: the Coelacanth. Shows transitional features between fish and land animals. The coolest thing is that they are still around. It shows how some branches can fork, creating one new type of animal while preserving the original line.

[jenk]

Carbon Dating has been attacked and is considered an undependent source for 100% hardcore evidential backup!!!

Ok so even if it is off SEVERAL thousand years it still shows the earth was around before the bible says so (I can't remember but I think it says younger than 10 thousand).

[hyuugaNeji]

isnt that obvious.

[seeking]

about the whole "life must come from life and can not spring up on its own", what if everything is alive, EVERYTHING is made of energy right(possibly strings), EVERYTHING came from the same singularity (big bang), so then EVERYTHING is part of everything else, the combonations of these energies is what makes you what you are and a rock what a rock is, these energy combonations are also what makes you "alive". Think of life as the cycles of water, humans are liquid water (alive), when we die its as if we are evaporating (our energy is going back into the ground, air, whatever) and when it rains back down (this is when our energy is recyled into food for other "lving" objects) our energy then again becomes water(life), life could have sprung up from no where if the right energy combonations were formed, and for the simpilist of life forms to be created with the millions if not billions of years the earth has been around on thier side, life springing from nothing doesnt seem so hard to believe

[Hotoke]

life springing from nothing doesnt seem so hard to believe

simple life can spring from nothing but complicated human life like us cannot

[jenk]

simple life can spring from nothing but complicated human life like us cannot

It can. You just have to give it a really really long time

[seeking]

what i also mean to add in there was while water evaporates its still water, just not liquid water, this can be said when humans die, we are still alive just not physically (this does not mean you have a soul and this does not mean there is a god, all it means is your energy is still there)

[Hotoke]

It can. You just have to give it a really really long time

which we will call evolution

[seeking]

life springing from nothing doesnt seem so hard to believe

simple life can spring from nothing but complicated human life like us cannot

456497[/snapback]

of course complicated life can not spring form nothing, but it can spring from simpler life

[saucy]

I've seen evolution work at hand. Microevolution does happen and over many years I believe animals can change, but not into completely different species of animal. A bee is a bee and nothing will change that. It might become a different color or have a personality change and voila, you got Killer Bees, Africanized bees, etc...but they're still bees. It is my belief that God created animals uniquely to survive in their respected environment. I will never believe macroevolution can happen on any scale until they can show me how life popped up in the first place. The best they can do is get a chemical reaction. Put the right chemicals and gasses together and an "environment" and get amino acids or proteins, but nobody has ever been able to see life crop up out of nowhere!

[aquatus1]

So how do you tell the difference between a bee and a fly?

Which is the bee? Which is the fly? Why?

Edited January 20, 2005 by aquatus1

[+joc]

Da Bee tings.

[jrl0469]

I'm back....some of us have to work...

I didn't start this thread to debate people! I wanted to see what most of you put your "faith" in for evolution - its part of my research for another project I'm working on

thanks for your responses - and God Bless

Jason L.

Creation Scientist

P.S. radiometric dating is not a evidence for evolution technically its just there to support the time needed for evolution to occur...

Edited January 20, 2005 by jrl0469

[Fluffybunny]

I've never been one for single word replies but:

To come here and claim to be a Creation Scientist and then to walk away like this make me think you may be...stretching the truth a bit...

[seeking]

i am in compliance with fluffy

[jrl0469]

I've never been one for single word replies but:

To come here and claim to be a Creation Scientist and then to walk away like this make me think you may be...stretching the truth a bit...

456933[/snapback]

I won't waste my time here trying to explain real science to lay-people...

what do you want to talk about ?

Molecular chemistry - Microbiology - Genetics

give me a break!

I'd have an easier time explaining addition & subtraction to a cockroach!