Evidence for Evolution

[Sister Golden Hair]

Administrative Note- This thread along with the "Creationism" thread is now open. They are now titled accordingly and open for discussion. All members are welcome and incouraged to post. Please remember that not everyone shares your views and opinions, so we ask that you debate responsibly, and stay on topic. Discussion of Creationism and Evolution will be discussed in their designated threads and will not enter the others.

Any violations of Entmoot's posting policies will be answered with warnings, permanent closure of the threads, or possible banning.

If you have any questions regarding Entmoot's rules or moderation, please feel free to contact us by email or private message.

Thank you.

[Jonathan]

I found a very informative website on just about everything one could think of in a debate about evolution vs. creationism:

The Evolution Pages

^ Very good link!

Creationists who are interested in truth (RÃ*an! ) and others too will find this an interesting and enlightening read. I especially recommend the link "Evidence for Evolution" since not only is all kinds of evidence mentioned (many proofs have already been discussed at this board I think) but it is also explained why a particular part of evidence is evidence.

The website also has a big section on creationism that I haven't had time to look at yet.

[Rían]

Thanks, Jonathan! I'll go look at it. I think it's a fascinating subject.

[Rían]

*takes a brief look at the link*

wow, wow, wow! Tons of good stuff to discuss in the evolution section! This will take awhile.

And I might say I looked at the creationist half and found a mistake in about 10 seconds

I don't have time to discuss the link now, but I think it's a good jump-off place, and I'll just join in wherever you guys want to start. But Jon, in the meantime, would you go over to the creationism thread and take a look at my post on the background and foundations of the scientific method? I'd like your opinions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*takes a brief look at the link*

wow, wow, wow! Tons of good stuff to discuss! This will take awhile.

And I might say I looked at the creationist half and found a mistake in about 10 seconds

You can discuss that in the creationism thread wheree I posted the link and som information. You seem to be ignoring me though. But since this is MY thread - I don't want you dragging religion in here or creationism - this is about SCIENTIFIC evidence on EVOLUTION.

BTW - I'm not surprised you have found something on the creationist part you didn't like.

[Rían]

I just realized my post was unclear - the "Tons of good stuff to discuss!" was referring to the evolution info, which I had spent some time reading, while only glancing at the creationist side, since Jonathan had mentioned it. I'll go edit my post.

[Rían]

JD just posted this on the creationism thread:

Originally Posted by JD

I had fouhd this quote in someone's signature in the nation state's forum and I thought it was very appropriate to this discussion of creationism...

Just as JD found it appropriate to the discussion of creationism, I find it appropriate to the discussion on evolution, so I posted it here

IMO, altho parts of the theory of evolution are open to being changed when the facts don't fit (as in the case of pangenes and gradualism), still, the basic premise is NOT open to being changed, and I think that is very important to realize. The basic underlying premise of evolution is that one-celled-prototypes developed into all life as we now see it over billions of years and thru naturalistic processes such as natural selection and beneficial mutation. And altho pangenes have been tossed out because of facts, and gradualism has been tossed out because of facts, the underlying premise has NOT been tossed out. And this is the same way creationism operates, IMO. Both models have underlying premises that will not be tossed out; both have theoretical parts that CAN be tossed out as facts prove them wrong.

Will expound later; dishes are calling!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

JD just posted this on the creationism thread:



Just as JD found it appropriate to the discussion of creationism, I find it appropriate to the discussion on evolution, so I posted it here

You are right - it does have a very good place here and it demonstrates that SCIENCE will discard theories that no longer work. I'm glad you agree with it so much that you have decided to put it here for all to see.

IMO, altho parts of the theory of evolution are open to being changed when the facts don't fit (as in the case of pangenes and gradualism), still, the basic premise is NOT open to being changed, and I think that is very important to realize. The basic underlying premise of evolution is that one-celled-prototypes developed into all life as we now see it over billions of years and thru naturalistic processes such as natural selection and beneficial mutation. And altho pangenes have been tossed out because of facts, and gradualism has been tossed out because of facts, the underlying premise has NOT been tossed out. And this is the same way creationism operates, IMO. Both models have underlying premises that will not be tossed out; both have theoretical parts that CAN be tossed out as facts prove them wrong.

Your statement saying that the "basic premise is NOT open to being changed" is only because nothing is as well supported by science as the overall premise of evolution. If something comes along and blows evolution out of the water - then yeah - it would be discarded - just like thousands of theories related to many things have been before. But so far - nothing comes as close to explaining so much as evolution does.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hmmm, nice quote jd,
rian, it seems to, erm, contradict all of your arguments...

[Lief Erikson]

You know what, Last Child? If we had revised our scriptures a few centuries ago to "fit the known facts," our Bible would be utterly messed up by now. Instead, consistently, when Christians believe what the Bible says in spite of what science says, science has ended up changing. Often that change comes in ways that better fit what the Bible says. I can cite instances. The break-up of the continents, for example. The person who proposed that theory was persecuted by scientists because his theory was "too Christian." The dinosaurs also, in my opinion, are clearly pointed toward in the scripture that says reptiles used to stand upright rather then crawl on their bellies. Historical data keeps fitting the Old Testament narrative. Assyrian accounts correlate splendidly with Israelite accounts from scripture, and various archaeological findings have consistently backed up specifics of what the Old Testament says existed. The Hittites, for example. There was no record that they existed aside from scripture, and were cited by many as a primary evidence of the Bible's faultiness. Now other things have turned up that show clearly that the Hittites did exist. Other facts of science too keep coming up that add more and more validity to what the scripture says. Yes, sometimes Christians have taken things on faith in the face of science and in the face of many other esteemed branches of man's learning. These barriers have fallen apart in the past, and they will fall apart in the future.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The dinosaurs also, in my opinion, are clearly pointed toward in the scripture that says reptiles used to stand upright rather then crawl on their bellies.

That's only true if you throw out the latest known science that shows that BIRDS, NOT reptiles, are descendants from dinosaurs.

Please also note - this is a scientific thread only - not a religious thread. Please back up your statements with scientific fact - not biblical beliefs.

BTW - Lief - just because something is written and corresponds to historical events - does NOT mean that you can base a science on it. It was thought for a long time that Homer's Odessey was completely fictional. Now many of the places have been found, along with Troy and the is even evidence that the battles were true. Does that mean we should believe that the Sirens and Cyclops were also true and that Zeus and all the gods were also true? JUst because there is correlation with historical events - doesn't make it 100% accurate.

Another example is that right now I'm reading The Princeton Murders. All the places are accurate - streets, parks, restaurants, coffee houses, buildings, - but the story is completely fictional. In a thousand years - if people find this book - they may actually think that these murders were real because all the places are real.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Please also note - this is a scientific thread only - not a religious thread. Please back up your statements with scientific fact - not biblical beliefs.

I don't recall making any statements that lack backing. I understand that this vein of conversation is rather off-topic, though. I'll move to the "REAL debate on religion" topic to answer your post.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't recall making any statements that lack backing. I understand that this vein of conversation is rather off-topic, though. I'll move to the "REAL debate on religion" topic to answer your post.

The bible stuff is off topic, however the question regarding the dinosaurs evolving into birds is on topic. I will therefore repost my comments regarding that from the "Real Debate on Religion" thread.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The way the dinosaurs went extinct is still very, very much up for debate. There are at least two theories for how they vanished. One theory is evolution to birds. Another theory is the astroid destruction. Videos I've seen on the subject of the dinosaurs describe the mystery surrounding their demise, mentioning both theories but concluding with the fact that no one really knows.

That is incorrect. Those theories are in no way opposed to one another. The dinosaurs were in the PROCESS of evolving into birds when the astroid hit. By the way - I did not mean you couldn't have discussed this in the evolution thread. But your bible stuff isn't science.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll have to watch one of my dinosaur videos again. I remember hearing about the birds taking over the skies from the dinosaurs, pushing some of the larger dinosaur fliers toward extinction. I don't recall hearing anything about their evolving into birds except from one different video, which had a separate section for each of the primary possible theories, one being the astroid collision and one being evolution to birds.

I'll have to research on this one again, I expect. I just don't remember hearing anything about the two theories being one.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'll have to watch one of my dinosaur videos again. I remember hearing about the birds taking over the skies from the dinosaurs, pushing some of the larger dinosaur fliers toward extinction. I don't recall hearing anything about their evolving into birds except from one different video, which had a separate section for each of the primary possible theories, one being the astroid collision and one being evolution to birds.

I'll have to research on this one again, I expect. I just don't remember hearing anything about the two theories being one.

I never said they were one - I said they weren't OPPOSING theories. And actually - it is pretty much a fact that at the time of the dinosaurs disappearance - the astroid hit off the coast of Mexico.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I never said they were one - I said they weren't OPPOSING theories. And actually - it is pretty much a fact that at the time of the dinosaurs disappearance - the astroid hit off the coast of Mexico.

I know the Chixulub crater is dated to that time period. Dinosaurs were still very much the dominant planet race, as you know. I'll have to research though, my friend. From what I recall, the birds were multiplying and pushing the winged dinosaurs to extinction. Mammals were becoming a stronger force in the world. They were still a weak one, but more of a presence then they had been. The winged dinosaurs were being wiped out because the birds were more competitive. We see the same system in our modern days. When creatures are under heavy pressure and can't cope with a competing species, they go under. The winged dinosaurs were going under.

I know that comparisons between bird and dinosaur bone structures have been made, and they show the two types of creatures to have strong resemblences. I'm not sure what evidence there is though that says the birds which were pushing the winged dinosaurs to extinction actually had been dinosaurs themselves, though. Birds have been around for about as long as the dinosaurs have. Archaeoptrix (forgive the spelling, which no doubt is bad ) existed 150 to 130 million years ago, and is classified as a bird. The dinosaurs ruled the land from 200 million years ago. I don't see why one should think that these new races of birds that were invading the pterosaur's Cretaceous shouldn't have stemmed from them.

I don't know nearly enough about this theory of evolution of dinosaurs to birds. Do you have some good links you could offer me? I don't mean regarding the evidence. I know of the bone structure similarities. I want to know what the theory itself is.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

birds taking over the skies from the dinosaurs, pushing some of the larger dinosaur fliers toward extinction

you do of course realise that there were no dinosaurs that could fly, apart from those already well on the way to bird evolution? pterosaurs could fly, they were not dinosaurs, although it is a common misconception from people who have no palaeontological grounding of course.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

Birds have been around for about as long as the dinosaurs have. Archaeoptrix (forgive the spelling, which no doubt is bad ) existed 150 to 130 million years ago, and is classified as a bird

Archaeopteryx, and most palaeontologists actually class that particular species more in the coelurosaur family, not any of the bird families, avimimus, on the other hand, is often called a dinosaur, but most scientists class that now as bird.

[Insidious Rex]

Lief, its important to keep in mind that the K-T event was not like one big off switch and that even if a vast majority of the individuals of a given species were killed because of it you wouldnt know it today because they may have completely recovered. Birds definitely took a hit from the event. But they recovered and became the only direct descendent of all dinosauria. Have a look at the following. It does a pretty good job of describing the effects:

Among the Dinosauria, the only survivors were the birds, but birds suffered heavy losses. A number of diverse groups became extinct, including the Enantiornithes and Hesperornithiformes; the last of the pterosaurs also went extinct. A number of mammal groups also became extinct. In the sea, many species of phytoplankton were wiped out. The great sea reptiles of the Cretaceous, the mosasaurs and plesiosaurs, also fell victim to extinction. Among mollusks, the ammonites, a diverse group of coiled cephalopods, were exterminated, as were the specialized rudist and inoceramid clams. Freshwater mussels and snails also suffered heavy losses in North America. Much less is known about how the K-T event affected the rest of the world. It should be emphasized that the survival of a group does not mean that the group was unaffected: a species might have been 99% annihilated by the asteroid strike, yet still manage to survive.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

rian, it seems to, erm, contradict all of your arguments...

How?