What's the best evidence for evolution?

[jce]

I agree that the word "evolution" in the broadest sense means "change over time." When I was studying Quantum Physics (30 years ago! Egad! ) we used the "time evolution operator" to translate a quantum state from time 0 to time t. It looks like this:

Attachment 503

But since we know we are talking about biological evolution, I don't think we need to dig into Quantum Mechanics ... unless you really want to! <snicker>

So what do you think of evolution? Do you have any understanding of the theory? Do you have any idea why it is accepted by approximately 98% of all working biologists? Don't you think they must think they have some evidence supporting the theory? Think about it ... what modern science could stand if it directly contradicted all the observations of thousands of working scientists on a daily basis?

Regarding quantum mechanics, it is the equivalent of mysticism and you are no more capable of explaining what is happening at the level than I am. Since you are stuck there, maybe you could present your verifiable evidence which introduces life into the biological world which would be an essential component to evolution, after all, no life, no evolution, right?

Oh by the way, it's a good candy bar.

Your friend

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Regarding quantum mechanics, it is the equivalent of mysticism and you are no more capable of explaining what is happening at the level than I am. Since you are stuck there, maybe you could present your verifiable evidence which introduces life into the biological world which would be an essential component to evolution, after all, no life, no evolution, right?

Oh by the way, it's a good candy bar.

Your friend

John

The origin of DNA and the first cell is still a mystery. God could have done it for all I know, though I would be surprised if it didn't evolve through natural chemical evolution. But that's totally irrelevant to the theory of evolution which is the theory that explains the evolution of living organisms. The evidence strongly supports the idea that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor. So it doesn't matter if God created the first cell - that wouldn't affect a single fact about the theory of evolution.

And yes, Snickers are the bomb! Yum.

[David M]

David,

I have no idea how it is possible that you failed to understand the point of this thread. I am not a Christian, but I can easily state the best evidence for Christianity. This is exactly what I did when I started the "What's the best evidence for Christianity" thread. This proves that I am open-minded and it supports my assertion that I have rejected Christianity because it fails on evidential grounds.

Can you say the same thing about your stance on evolution? Absolutely not. If you are incapable of stating the evidence supporting evolution, then you can't present any legitimate arguments against it because you are totally ignorant, by your own admission, of the science.

How is it possible that you don't understand these simple facts? Don't you understand that you must be able to articulate the view you reject? If not, then how do you even know what you are rejecting?

This thread is a test to reveal who are blind dogmatists and who are true Truth Seekers.

I think it would be great if you read the opening post again with an open mind. I know you have sufficient intelligence to understand the point I am making. The problem is that you are so deeply embedded into your dogmatism that you can't even consider the possibility that any other point of view might be right. I'm offering you a path to freedom from the blind dogmatism that has trapped your soul. Please try David. The fact that you cannot even state any evidence for evolution proves that your soul is currently in bondage that blinds your mind.

Richard

Richard

If you want an answer from me in the way you intend, the best evidence I see is; variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance.

It was not too hard to give an answer after all. l do not expect you to agree that this is the "best evidenc"e, only that is is "good" evidence, but do not challenge me on what I mean by "good", as that has been done in another thread.


David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard

If you want an answer from me in the way you intend, the best evidence I see is; variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance.

It was not too hard to give an answer after all. l do not expect you to agree that this is the "best evidenc"e, only that is is "good" evidence, but do not challenge me on what I mean by "good", as that has been done in another thread.

David

Hey there David,

You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations!

I agree that "variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance" is excellent evidence for evolution. Indeed, it is the very definition of biological evolution!

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

This is why evolution is a "fact" and not a "theory." The "theory of evolution" is the set of scientific principles intended to explain the "fact of evolution." This is why creationism is not a science and cannot compete with science. It has no "theory" - no consistent set of testable principles - that explains anything.

You will note that I struck out the words "within kinds" when agreeing with your comment because that idea has no meaning in science.

I'm really glad you decided to contribute your insights to this question. Thanks!

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard

Hey there David,

You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations!

Thanks for the congratulations

I agree that "variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance" is excellent evidence for evolution. Indeed, it is the very definition of biological evolution!

Thanks for this link. I will have a look and read of some of the content.

This is why evolution is a "fact" and not a "theory." The "theory of evolution" is the set of scientific principles intended to explain the "fact of evolution." This is why creationism is not a science and cannot compete with science. It has no "theory" - no consistent set of testable principles - that explains anything.

"Evolution is a "fact" and not theory"" is to be decided, if we examine the best information. Not everyone agrees that Evolution is fact, so present the facts of the evidence and lets see if you can convince the Bible scholars on this forum.

You will note that I struck out the words "within kinds" when agreeing with your comment because that idea has no meaning in science.

I expected you to object to word "kinds". It is good of you to just strike it out.

OK Richard, we have overcome the title of the thread, but now the question remains; "what is the best evidence?" I have told you what is the best type of evidence, I have not given you any evidence. Now the evidence following this type of evidence has to be presented. I do not have a clue as to what of all the evidence available is the best.

I will put to one side how we get from nothing to a single atom. From the simplest atom hydrogen we get the heavier atoms that make up the periodic table of elements. From atoms we move on to the simplest molecules and then to complex molecules. We can start from the position of the simplest molecules necessary for the simplest of life. We start with amino acids and proteins and get to the first cell or bacterium? From a single cell we have the development to the different types of cells in order to produce all the different kinds of plants and animals. Somewhere in the chain starting with a single cell to complex living types, you are going to have to find a piece of the chain that is undeniably an evolutionary process.

I feel that there are going to be a lot of gaps and presumptions but I am prepared to consider anything evidence you want to put forward. Showing the links leading to the duckbillplatibus might be a challenge but let's start off with the simplest evidence as the simplest is likely to be the best. Getting from the simplest to the most complex can be the next stage. Whether examples of the best evidence presented is actual proof of Evolution has to be decided. I am prepared to keep an open mind as much as possible to see how far we can get in this challenge.

The next step I will leave to you.

All the best,
David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

Thanks for the congratulations

My pleasure! You deserved it.

This is why evolution is a "fact" and not a "theory." The "theory of evolution" is the set of scientific principles intended to explain the "fact of evolution." This is why creationism is not a science and cannot compete with science. It has no "theory" - no consistent set of testable principles - that explains anything.

"Evolution is a "fact" and not theory"" is to be decided, if we examine the best information. Not everyone agrees that Evolution is fact, so present the facts of the evidence and lets see if you can convince the Bible scholars on this forum.

I think you might still be confusing the "fact of evolution" with the "theory of evolution." Did you understand the difference between "fact" and "theory" as I explained it? Biological evolution is a fact like gravity. You said so yourself when you gave the definition of evolution as the "best evidence" for evolution. We look at the fossil record and see that the species that lived in the past are different than the species alive today. And the further back we look, the more they change. We can see that the changes follow patterns that branch out into more and more variety as time passes. So I really don't think there is any question about the fact of evolution. But if you think this point is debatable and that animals have stayed the same over the entire history of the planet, please present your evidence so I can evaluate it.

OK Richard, we have overcome the title of the thread, but now the question remains; "what is the best evidence?" I have told you what is the best type of evidence, I have not given you any evidence. Now the evidence following this type of evidence has to be presented. I do not have a clue as to what of all the evidence available is the best.

In my opinion, the best evidence is as follows:

1. DNA - the same kind of DNA evidence that is accepted in courts to determine paternity is used to show the relation between species. We are all related and come from a common ancestor.
2. The fossil record.
3. The Phylogenetic Tree of Life that shows the relation between all organisms. This coheres with both DNA and the fossil evidence.
4. The distribution of life on the planet. This is where geology and fossils mutually confirm the dating and the tree of life, etc.

A quick guide to the evidence for evolution is found here. It's very brief and should be very enlightening for folks not familiar with the evidence. If you find something you think is false or inaccurate, please bring it to my attention.

I will put to one side how we get from nothing to a single atom. From the simplest atom hydrogen we get the heavier atoms that make up the periodic table of elements. From atoms we move on to the simplest molecules and then to complex molecules. We can start from the position of the simplest molecules necessary for the simplest of life. We start with amino acids and proteins and get to the first cell or bacterium? From a single cell we have the development to the different types of cells in order to produce all the different kinds of plants and animals. Somewhere in the chain starting with a single cell to complex living types, you are going to have to find a piece of the chain that is undeniably an evolutionary process.

I feel that there are going to be a lot of gaps and presumptions but I am prepared to consider anything evidence you want to put forward. Showing the links leading to the duckbillplatibus might be a challenge but let's start off with the simplest evidence as the simplest is likely to be the best. Getting from the simplest to the most complex can be the next stage. Whether examples of the best evidence presented is actual proof of Evolution has to be decided. I am prepared to keep an open mind as much as possible to see how far we can get in this challenge.

The next step I will leave to you.

All the best,
David

You have stepped outside the question of this thread. When I speak of biological evolution I am talking only about how all organisms descended from a common ancestor. Questions about the origin of the universe, matter and energy, the formation of galaxies and planets are simply too big to tackle all at once. And they involve very advanced physics so we probably could not have a fruitful discussion. The same thing goes for the question of the origin of the first cell. We simply do not know enough to give any firm answers to that topic. For all I know, God could have created DNA and the first cell. But that's irrelevant to the question of biological evolution because that theory would remain the same no matter how the first cell got here. We must choose some starting point, so we should choose something we can know with some degree of certainty.

Great chatting my friend!

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard

I think you might still be confusing the "fact of evolution" with the "theory of evolution." Did you understand the difference between "fact" and "theory" as I explained it? Biological evolution is a fact like gravity. You said so yourself when you gave the definition of evolution as the "best evidence" for evolution. We look at the fossil record and see that the species that lived in the past are different than the species alive today. And the further back we look, the more they change. We can see that the changes follow patterns that branch out into more and more variety as time passes. So I really don't think there is any question about the fact of evolution. But if you think this point is debatable and that animals have stayed the same over the entire history of the planet, please present your evidence so I can evaluate it.

I accept biological changes can take place, but whether those changes happen in reality the way Evolutionists say must be proved. How can anyone be certain the tree of life is accurate? As an aside, I would really like to know if naturalists like David Attenborough believe evolutionist. He is forced to tow the line when presenting his natural history programs. Privately, I think he might not.

I will examine the best pieces of evidence you can give me. I accept changes from common ancestors of different kinds(species). Microevolution in species I can accept. Symbiotic relations between plants and animals needs to be explained and the tree of life might do that. Do you know if it does? I do not have a copy of the tree of life to check what it shows.

In my opinion, the best evidence is as follows:

1. DNA - the same kind of DNA evidence that is accepted in courts to determine paternity is used to show the relation between species. We are all related and come from a common ancestor.
2. The fossil record.
3. The Phylogenetic Tree of Life that shows the relation between all organisms. This coheres with both DNA and the fossil evidence.
4. The distribution of life on the planet. This is where geology and fossils mutually confirm the dating and the tree of life, etc.

A quick guide to the evidence for evolution is found here. It's very brief and should be very enlightening for folks not familiar with the evidence. If you find something you think is false or inaccurate, please bring it to my attention.

The problem I see with DNA is that I see this as one of God's fundamental building blocks for all complex life forms (a singel cell is comlex). It is not surprising to find similarities in DNA amongst species (or kinds). It would be logical for God when he designed His creation on earth, to design the simpler life forms first and then design progressively more tcomplex life forms building on previous designs. As I see it now, Evolution might be discovering the progression in God's design process. Let's continue as you want to proceed.

I see you mention the tree of life which I referred to in my reply to the previous paragraph, so I refer to my question there.

I do not have much faith in some of the dating methods, but I acknowledge you accept those methods are accurate. I am prepared to leave the fossil record out if the best evidence does not have to depend on the fossil record.

You have stepped outside the question of this thread. When I speak of biological evolution I am talking only about how all organisms descended from a common ancestor. Questions about the origin of the universe, matter and energy, the formation of galaxies and planets are simply too big to tackle all at once. And they involve very advanced physics so we probably could not have a fruitful discussion. The same thing goes for the question of the origin of the first cell. We simply do not know enough to give any firm answers to that topic. For all I know, God could have created DNA and the first cell. But that's irrelevant to the question of biological evolution because that theory would remain the same no matter how the first cell got here. We must choose some starting point, so we should choose something we can know with some degree of certainty.

By "putting that to one side", I meant we are not going to consider basic origins for the reason you have explained. Sorry if I presumed you knew what I meant. I agree we must choose some starting point.

The time this will take examing all the evidence to prove to me that Evolution leads to the many different species is going to take longer than I can expect to live and I think eternal life will be proven to me (or not) before Evolution can be proven to me. If you have an accelerated learning path to understanding Evolution and examining all the evidence, please let me know.

David

[Rose]

The time this will take examing all the evidence to prove to me that Evolution leads to the many different species is going to take longer than I can expect to live and I think eternal life will be proven to me (or not) before Evolution can be proven to me. If you have an accelerated learning path to understanding Evolution and examining all the evidence, please let me know.

David

Hi David,

The first books I read when I was just beginning to learn about evolution were The Language of Life by Francis Collins and The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. Both are excellent books by top scientists in their field.

Rose

[CWH]

Evolution is BULLSHIT. Do you know that we humans can create modified germs and modified plants and modified animals just by tweaking some of their DNAs? Soon humans will be able to create new species of animals by tweaking the animal's DNAs. They don't evolved but are all created by humans through genetic modification. Such tweaking of the DNAs in fact produces sub-species of germs, plants, animals. If humans can do that by CREATION, I see no reason why GOd cannot create animals and plants etc. by creation. It doesn't make sense to have "random creation" which either leads to nothing or is imperfect and impossible when intelligent design and creation is much faster and easier with predictable perfect outcome. It's the same and as easy as creating computer virus and bugs just by creating or changing computer codes. NOTHING IS EVOLVED, ALL ARE CREATED. Do you know that scientists have already created the world"s first bacteria from man-made DNA? This is a blow to Evolution; there is no stopping men from creating sub-species of living things:

http://www.google.com.sg/#hl=en&gs_n...2&bih=415&bs=1

Scientists create 1st bacteria strain from man-made DNA
Updated 5/20/2010 8:30 PM | Comment | Recommend Share on emailE-mail | Share on printPrint | Reprints & Permissions |


Enlarge Science/AAAS

Images of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 and WT M. mycoides at varying magnifications. Scientists designed a non-infectious gene map for Mycoplasma mycoides bacteria, ordered the map's chemical constituents and assembled those chemicals into a gene chromosome inside yeast cells. Finally, they transplanted the genome into a different species of bacteria, "and booted it up."


SCIENCE REPORTER TWEETS



Share
Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore
Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe
myYahoo iGoogleMore
Netvibes myAOL
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Genome researchers Thursday unveiled the first bacteria strain with a man-made collection of genes.
The long-anticipated advance, reported in the journal Science, is a $40 million milestone in the nascent field of "synthetic biology" and points towards a future of designer microbes manufacturing fuels, chemicals and materials.

"This is the first self-replicating cell we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer," says team chief Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Md., who called the bacteria "the world's first synthetic cell." Venter is best known for his leadership of private human genome mapping efforts in the last decade, but he has since become a leading figure in synthetic biology, with his team producing a series of advances over the past 15 years.

In this latest study, the team designed a non-infectious gene map for Mycoplasma mycoides bacteria, ordered the map's chemical constituents and assembled those chemicals into a gene chromosome inside yeast cells. Finally, they transplanted the genome into a different species of bacteria, "and booted it up," Venter says, noting "a lot of failed attempts" preceded the success.

The altered bacteria reproduced as blue colonies of mycoides cells (now held in a freezer and awaiting a museum), containing gene "watermark" codes contained only in the synthetic genome.

"This represents an important step in our ability to engineer organisms," says Howard Hughes Medical Institutes genome researcher Jim Collins of Boston University, who was not on the study team. The results represent a "methodological tour-de-force," he adds. "Certainly the yeast step they have developed should be repeatable. We should be able to do things in other bacteria to reprogram them," leading to microbes producing materials for manufacturing.

In a briefing, the team noted it has asked for bioethics and safety reviews of synthetic biology research. Venter says the team approached the Bush Administration for permission to openly publish past research in this area out of bioterrorism safety concerns.

"It would be possible for someone to synthesize a pathogen (dangerous microbe) in a new way this way," says Robert Friedman of the Venter Institute. But he says federal officials have undertaken rule-making procedures to police the ordering of the chemicals needed to synthesize genomes, as they do biologists ordering dangerous microbes. The team eliminated 14 genes from their synthetic genome that allow the mycoides bacteria to infect goats.

Technology assessment expert David Rejeski of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington D.C., says the public knows little about synthetic biology and the study announcement may bring added concern. "If anything positive comes out of the (Gulf of Mexico) oil spill, it is that nobody is going to believe in 'failsafe' technologies for a long time, and that will apply to scientists tinkering with biology as well," he says.

The study team has taken patents on the synthetic genome process, Venter adds, and hopes to repeat its success in algae as a step to producing chemicals from engineered microbes. "This is not life from scratch," Venter says. "We are taking advantage of 3 billion years of evolution to transplant a genome into a cell."


http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...nts%2C+animals

God Blessed Creation

[luke1978]

Evolution is BULLSHIT. Do you know that we humans can create modified germs and modified plants and modified animals just by tweaking some of their DNAs? Soon humans will be able to create new species of animals by tweaking the animal's DNAs. They don't evolved but are all created by humans through genetic modification. Such tweaking of the DNAs in fact produces sub-species of germs, plants, animals. If humans can do that by CREATION, I see no reason why GOd cannot create animals and plants etc. by creation. It doesn't make sense to have "random creation" which either leads to nothing or is imperfect when intelligent design and creation is much faster and easier with predictable perfect outcome. It's the same and as easy as creating computer virus and bugs just by creating or changing computer codes. NOTHING IS EVOLVED, ALL ARE CREATED.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...nts%2C+animals

God Blessed Creation

First man claims to be a God unto himself and then he plagiarised his/her/it's work!

The verdict:

http://www.biblemaths.com/dna.pdf

God wins! - This should be good news even to an atheist. Now they can convert...