Evidence for Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

what clear evidence? the moth thing?? I haven't ignored anything, in fact i've been very open minded i just don't happen to find that any of your evidence is conclusive or even accurate.

Allow me to quote myself then. Heres what I was talking about as just one example among many here of posted evidence:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Evolution (and there is only one kind...) has been observed directly both in the laboratory and in the wild. We can see its mechanisms when we study DNA.

Even without these direct observations it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow (like certain people insist on seeing in order for them to buy evolution...). This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence AGAINST evolution.

Lets start with the DNA evidence then. No one ever told me why those animals predicted by evolutionary theory always seem to be most closely related to us genetically. Are you saying thats not clear evidence?

[Count Comfect]

That, and, let us not forget, the many breeds of sheep, dogs, and other domesticated animals that have been differentiated from each other over the few thousand years mankind has been practicing artificial selection, which shows that breeding can change species.

That, and Darwin's finches out on the Galapagos, where one finch species came out but quickly adapted into many with different bills for all the different potential niches that had previously been unfilled.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So how come there are shed loads of papers in the scientific literature based on evolution and none on creationism?

Because evolutionists tell creationists/IDers they can't take their ideas seriously unless they're peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals, then refuse to publish their papers in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

The funny thing is that they're starting to change their tune, now that some papers have been published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals - they're NOW saying, "well, peer-review doesn't necessarily mean that it's right". Well, duh! and neither are YOUR articles necessarily right!

The sad thing is that the editor who published the peer-reviewed article discussing *gasp* scientific issues of ID was just excoriated by his less-than-collegial colleagues Here's a link if you want to trace the story:
here

Truly sad how some close-minded evolutionists are apparently so frightened by any type of perceived threat to their pet theory that they'll shut down valid scientific inquiry

[rohirrim TR]

mutations and microevolution, we've been over this, it is not evidence of macroevolution in fact the diverse specie of sheep, the dog example we had a while back, could all be interperted as evidence for creation and flood theory.
You guys will admit that there has been no direct observation of macroevolution, yet.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

That, and, let us not forget, the many breeds of sheep, dogs, and other domesticated animals that have been differentiated from each other over the few thousand years mankind has been practicing artificial selection, which shows that breeding can change species.

Each breed that has been differentiated from each other has three important characteristics -
1. Genetic info has been LOST, not gained;
2. features of the new breed were ALREADY PRESENT in the genetic makeup of the parent breed;
3. New dog species came from - DOGS; new sheep species came from - SHEEP, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Plus, given that scientists themselves define "species" (and btw, often argue over it quite a bit!), it's hardly "proof" of evolution to say that a new species has arisen!

That, and Darwin's finches out on the Galapagos, where one finch species came out but quickly adapted into many with different bills for all the different potential niches that had previously been unfilled.

And again, the same 3 points apply here -
1. Genetic info has been LOST, not gained; and
2. features of the new breed were ALREADY PRESENT in the genetic makeup of the parent breed;
3. New finch species came from - finches.


There is NO indication of macroevolution in any of those examples. There is only microevolution, which IS observeable.


I'm going to try to present an analogy that I hope will help explain my position (and the position of many creationists). See, what I object to is the massive - absolutely MASSIVE - extrapolation that evolutionists do. They say that evolution is basically change in species over time. Fine, but that's not being honest, really. You need to define what TYPE of change, and the VEHICLE(s) by which the change is effected. After all, as I've said on earlier threads, if they say it's basically change in species over time, then I can say that a frog will change into a '55 Mustang in two weeks during a heavy rainstorm. So we need to get some details here.

Now the details of the current theory of evolution (often called neo-Darwinism) says that change on the level of particle-to-people happened, and the vehicle is natural selection operating on changes supplied by beneficial mutations. Now we can talk!

The problem is that there's nothing to talk about, if you're talking about scientific observation, because particle-to-people has not been observed. All we DO see is dogs coming from dogs, sheep from sheep, etc., and if there ARE enough changes for scientists to decide to call it a new species, the new species actually has LESS genetic info, never MORE. And particle-to-people requires the acquisition of MORE genetic info.

I'd like to ask you guys to please think about this analogy. An evolutionist and a creationist are standing in New York, looking over towards New Jersey. The sun sets, and then they both gaze up at the lovely stars Two guys walk up to them, and one guy says, "Hey, we just got here in New York. I just drove over from New Jersey in my '55 Mustang."

The evolutionist has done this too, and he knows it is possible - he has actually observed it happening. He then looks up at the stars, and says, "I think your friend there drove over in his '55 Mustang from that star."

The creationist says, "But it's so far!" and the evolutionist says, "but given enough time, it's possible!". Then the creationist replies, "I just don't think that type of change of position is possible given that vehicle, especially since no one has seen anything like it happen." The evolutionist replies, "Well, I've seen people drive from NJ to NY, and therefore I feel comfortable extrapolating this idea and saying someone could drive from that star to NY."

See, the problem I have with evolution is that I don't think it's a proper extrapolation from micro- to macro-evolution, given those vehicles. All that we CAN ACTUALLY OBSERVE of the vehicle points to changes that yield LESS genetic info, picking out features that ALREADY EXIST in the population, and birds yielding birds, dogs yielding dogs, etc. etc., altho scientists may choose to call them new species.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lets start with the DNA evidence then. No one ever told me why those animals predicted by evolutionary theory always seem to be most closely related to us genetically. Are you saying thats not clear evidence?

It's certainly evidence, but it's ALSO certainly NOT proof for evolutionary theory to the exclusion of any other theory. Same thing for fossil evidence.

Personally, I've always granted that there is some good evidence for evolution

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Yes. Not "common sense," but the 5 senses.

thanks for the clarification

[Count Comfect]

Rian, there's a problem with your analogy to the car, lots of problems actually. But it's an analogy, so I won't really spend time on it.

As for details, a species is usually (although, I admit, not always) defined by the ability to interbreed. So Darwin's finches are actually an example of a change of species - the finches could no longer interbreed.

And what is a "loss of genetic information"? How does a daschund have less "genetic information" than whatever proto-dog it shares with a poodle? It's just different genetic information, just as the poodle's is different, and the proto-dog's was different. Same with the finches - finch A has a wide beak for cracking nuts, finch B has a thin beak for picking up seeds. Which has more "genetic information"? And why would finch Prime, the original finch population with a medium beak, have more "genetic information" than either finch A or B?

This is a problem I think a lot of people (evolutionists and non-evolutionists) have in the understanding of the theory. No genes are better, or more valuable, or contain more information, than others. They are different. We are no better, and contain no more genetic data in any significant sense than a chimpanzee, or our ancestor that we share with the chimp. We are more adapted to our current environment (more "fit" in the Darwinian sense), but that doesn't have any real meaning. Our ancestor was just as "fit" for its environment - that's why it survived. There was no loss of anything.

And the whole point of macro-evolution is that a new dog comes from an old dog, and then a newer dog from the new dog, and so on until there is something that we would not call a dog when comparing it with the original. But nowhere is there a break where we'd say "this is not a dog, while the creature it came from is a dog," except maybe in retrospect and in a strictly scientific sense. We don't have people coming from particles... we have slime from particles, one-celled creatures from slime (admittedly the most controversial step, but we've discussed it before), eukaryotes from prokaryotes, multi-celled creatures... and so on to primates from mammals, and genus homo from the primates. That's why it takes so long. And, in theory, it could go the other way. If it became necessary, over a long enough timespan, humans could start developing, through mutation and random variation selected for by natural selection, characteristics more similar to our predecessors.

As for "features of the new breed were ALREADY PRESENT in the genetic makeup of the parent breed," what do you mean? A wide beak was NOT in the genetic makeup of the original finches... it developed from years of gradual selection for the widest beaks within the population. The genetic makeup CHANGED, albeit slowly. There was no immediate potential for the new adaptation in the original population, it had to develop through random variation and mutation. This again is a basis of going from micro to macro - "genetic makeup" is not static.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rian, there's a problem with your analogy to the car, lots of problems actually. But it's an analogy, so I won't really spend time on it.

But analogies often help explain things - at least they do for me. If it doesn't help you picture my objection, then you don't need to spend time on it

As for details, a species is usually (although, I admit, not always) defined by the ability to interbreed. So Darwin's finches are actually an example of a change of species - the finches could no longer interbreed.

Handy for scientists to be able to define "species", then say evolution produces a change in species

Seriously, tho (altho the above was serious, too, but said in a humorous manner) - I don't see the big deal. Finches produce finches.

And what is a "loss of genetic information"? How does a daschund have less "genetic information" than whatever proto-dog it shares with a poodle? It's just different genetic information, just as the poodle's is different, and the proto-dog's was different. Same with the finches - finch A has a wide beak for cracking nuts, finch B has a thin beak for picking up seeds. Which has more "genetic information"? And why would finch Prime, the original finch population with a medium beak, have more "genetic information" than either finch A or B?

If dogs, for example, have genes that allow their ears to be pricked or floppy, and then a breed is created from these dogs that ONLY has floppy ears, then there's less genetic info in that breed - they've lost the ability to generate floppy ears.

In the finches, ALL beak types were pre-existing in the population. There was just a shift in the prevalence when the environment changed. No big deal, and certainly NOT beneficial mutation. And if the population of finch Prime was able to produce finches with a wide variation of beaks (again, PRE-EXISTING genetic info), and finch A and B can only produce finches with smaller ranges/types of beaks, then they've lost genetic info.

This is a problem I think a lot of people (evolutionists and non-evolutionists) have in the understanding of the theory. No genes are better, or more valuable, or contain more information, than others. They are different. We are no better, and contain no more genetic data in any significant sense than a chimpanzee, or our ancestor that we share with the chimp. We are more adapted to our current environment (more "fit" in the Darwinian sense), but that doesn't have any real meaning. Our ancestor was just as "fit" for its environment - that's why it survived. There was no loss of anything.

I can buy that, except that I certainly hope you would admit that a human contains more genetic info than its particle predecessor!! Would you grant me that?

And the whole point of macro-evolution is that a new dog comes from an old dog, and then a newer dog from the new dog, and so on until there is something that we would not call a dog when comparing it with the original.

Yes, that's the whole point - but it's PURELY CONJECTURE. Would you grant me that?

But nowhere is there a break where we'd say "this is not a dog, while the creature it came from is a dog," except maybe in retrospect and in a strictly scientific sense. We don't have people coming from particles... we have slime from particles, one-celled creatures from slime (admittedly the most controversial step, but we've discussed it before), eukaryotes from prokaryotes, multi-celled creatures... and so on to primates from mammals, and genus homo from the primates.

I'm not saying that evolution says that people came directly from particles. I'm saying that evolution says that people EVENTUALLY came from particles. Would you grant me that?

That's why it takes so long. And, in theory, it could go the other way. If it became necessary, over a long enough timespan, humans could start developing, through mutation and random variation selected for by natural selection, characteristics more similar to our predecessors.

Yes, that's a hypothesis.

As for "features of the new breed were ALREADY PRESENT in the genetic makeup of the parent breed," what do you mean? A wide beak was NOT in the genetic makeup of the original finches... it developed from years of gradual selection for the widest beaks within the population. The genetic makeup CHANGED, albeit slowly. There was no immediate potential for the new adaptation in the original population, it had to develop through random variation and mutation. This again is a basis of going from micro to macro - "genetic makeup" is not static.

Nope, all beak sizes were pre-existing.

If you want to claim that the wide beak developed over millions of years into a wide beak, that's conjecture. That's not observation.

[Count Comfect]

But they haven't "lost the ability to generate pricked ears" - they've simply had a trend towards more floppy ears... they've gained an ability towards floppier ears. And if the need should come, they can shift back towards pricked ears, because that will be selected for. There is no loss of genetic information. One trait just becomes more prevalent and more pronounced. I mean, if a species evolves from having 2-3 inch ears to 5-6 inch ears, you can't say the genetic information for 5 inch ears was "in" the 2-3 inch ears, because none of the 2-3 inch ear individuals could have a 5 inch child... the 5 inch ear has appeared only after the genetic information changed.

In the finches, ALL beak types were pre-existing in the population. There was just a shift in the prevalence when the environment changed. No big deal, and certainly NOT beneficial mutation. And if the population of finch Prime was able to produce finches with a wide variation of beaks (again, PRE-EXISTING genetic info), and finch A and B can only produce finches with smaller ranges/types of beaks, then they've lost genetic info.

I beg to differ. Strongly. It is definitely a beneficial mutation to survive. And that's what the mutations did - they allowed the finches to adapt (and, by the way, split into multiple species... it isn't a 1-1 species change) and to better find food. See, a medium-beaked finch with species potential to have larger or smaller beaks can have a beneficial mutation to 2 different species - one with significantly larger beaks (not possible in the original) that finds one type of food much better than the original finch, and the other with significantly smaller beaks (also not possible in the original) that finds a different type of food better. Both new species, which cannot, in this case interbreed, are more "fit" - hence, it is a beneficial mutation. What other definition is there?

Handy for scientists to be able to define "species", then say evolution produces a change in species

Well, of course they can define it... if it were UNdefined, then there'd be no point in talking about them. Science, whereever possible, deals only in that which is defined. A species is defined. Then, you can look at whether two things are the same species. You can't even talk about whether they're different species if you don't first define what a species IS.

I don't see the big deal. Finches produce finches.

In the immediate present, yes. I have a finch. Its brood will be finches. Their brood will be finches. But after a million years, maybe this finch's descendants will not resemble the original finch enough for me to say they are still finches. And maybe two different groups of its descendants will be different from each other enough that I will not be able to say that they are the same species, even if they do share this finch as an ancestor.

Nope, all beak sizes were pre-existing.

At this point, I'll just have to say "prove it," the same way you'd want me to prove that they weren't. But I can prove that there are similar situations in which they weren't. See my 5 inch ear example above - the original population did not have beaks of all sizes (fossil record) - they had a specific beak size that Changed over Time.

Yes, that's the whole point - but it's PURELY CONJECTURE. Would you grant me that?

No. Not purely conjecture. There is conjecture in there, as there is in all science, because science is not set in stone nor infallible. But from watching the fossil record, and the history of domesticated animals and even plants (seedless bananas, for instance, have clearly evolved under human domestication), we can observe and draw conclusions that things do indeed work this way.

I can buy that, except that I certainly hope you would admit that a human contains more genetic info than its particle predecessor!! Would you grant me that?

Yes, to a certain degree. We did lose the ability to function without mitochondria though. That's a pretty big loss. And the ability to work without a nucleus too. We have Different info. That's my point. It isn't necessarily more (although we have a longer genome, so certainly in that sense we have "more info").

[Curubethion]

THE FINCHES WERE EVIDENCE OF MICROEVOLUTION!!!
Please don't state them as evidence of macroevolution. Microevolution does exist. That's the basis for our dog breeds. Macroevolution, the change of one species to another (e.g., cat->dog), has no supporting evidence.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

THE FINCHES WERE EVIDENCE OF MICROEVOLUTION!!!
Please don't state them as evidence of macroevolution. Microevolution does exist. That's the basis for our dog breeds. Macroevolution, the change of one species to another (e.g., cat->dog), has no supporting evidence.

What about vestigal organs? Are you saying they're all indications of Microevolution only?

[Count Comfect]

THE FINCHES WERE EVIDENCE OF MICROEVOLUTION!!!

To you. I say they are an example that microevolution and macroevolution are not as different as people say they are. Where are you drawing the boundary? The finches are different species at the end, and were not at the beginning. How is that small ("micro") scale evolution?

Besides, the finches ARE macroevolution. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

The finches underwent cladogenesis, the splitting of what was one species into more than one. It IS macroevolution. Things like dog breeds are indeed microevolution, but the finches are both - microevolution proceeding into a split of species.

And cats do not change into dogs. Comparisons like that are part of what causes people to misunderstand evolution.

[Curubethion]

The finches microevolved: all that changed was their beaks. They are as different from each other as dog breeds, which you say microevolved.

[Count Comfect]

Common fallacy. That's just the most obvious difference, and the (likely) reason for the differences. There are 14 (or 13, depending on who you ask) species of finch on the Galapagos... and as I have mentioned before, calling something a different species is not anything like a casual distinction. Heck, they belong to four different GENERA. They are NOT like dog breeds.

It ain't just the beaks.

[Curubethion]

Ok, then what are the differences between these "species". BTW, nobody actually observed these finches gradually evolving...Darwin only saw the results.

[Count Comfect]

Well, for a start, their song pattern (how they recognize mates) is different, as is their plumage.

This site has a good summary of the finches issue (although it appears to be partly a review of a book by someone named "Wells") (EDIT: The books is "Icons of Evolution") http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon7finches.html

If you're going to hold out for people having watched the species radiate, you are going to be here for a long time. Science as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. Scientists have looked for proofs of evolution for 170 years. That's nowhere NEAR enough time to have a species change into another species. The whole point is that it is based off of observation and deductive logic. There is a finch on the S. American mainland that fits the profile for the parent finch species on these islands - the island birds are quite similar internally, although they have distinctive songs and beaks (as well as plumage). It all points in one direction.

[Curubethion]

Possibly...but couldn't you say they were designed to fit the niches? Or even theistically evolved to fit the niches...
In other words, you suffer from a lack of proof.

[Count Comfect]

Occam's Razor. I posit only that observed microevolution (extreme variance in beak size during droughts) can extend in the longer droughts (say the one in the Galapagos 10,000 years ago). You posit a designer. My theory brings in fewer unknown entities, so it is to be favored scientifically.

This is why we say that we cannot be sure evolution is CORRECT, but we can be sure it is SCIENCE, and the other alternatives are not. Extrapolation from known data, including such finch fossils as exist, studies on living finches, and so on, is scientifically valid barring conflicting evidence. Positing unobserved entities is not.

[Lotesse]