News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

Evolution: Science or Myth?

Started by Bubblepot, December 24, 2010, 06:42:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bubblepot

Let's get together and prove the believers wrong once and for all with ultimate catalogue of hardcore evidence! What's the most undeniable, foolproof evidence for MACROevolution anyone has?

Whitney


Bubblepot

Thanks  :D I have a question about the whales though. A direct quote from the site is "Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs." This evidence for macroevolution is based on a few rare mutations rather than consistent observable physical laws. This certainly won't be enough to prove macroevolution once and for all... Am I missing something here or could you perhaps give me a more solid example?

Whitney

It was proven once and for all a long time ago.  Maybe someone else will walk you through it.

Bubblepot

"A long time ago"? Sorry, but that's a bit vague. Can you give a specific instance in which it was proved once and for all? I'd appreciate that as it would be very useful to the thread.  :)

Tank

Hi Bubblepot

As you appear to have issues concerning the facts about evolution I would suggest you get a copy of this book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and read it. It's an excellent book that explains in detail the evidences for evolution. It's better than Dawkins 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and eminently more readable than Darwins Origin of Species (which is very long in the tooth now).

Welcome aboard.

Regards
Chris
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Recusant

I sincerely doubt that you had time to go though the complete TalkOrigins Archive.  Maybe it's too intimidating for you.  I'll tell you what, I'm going to provide another link, which is specifically dedicated to correcting common misperceptions about biological evolution.  It's called Understanding Evolution. It's put together by U C Berkely, and it might be more accessible for you to go through.  If the answers to your questions aren't there, we can work on them later.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


DJAkuma

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Thanks  :D I have a question about the whales though. A direct quote from the site is "Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs." This evidence for macroevolution is based on a few rare mutations rather than consistent observable physical laws. This certainly won't be enough to prove macroevolution once and for all... Am I missing something here or could you perhaps give me a more solid example?

They do in fact develop hind limbs here and there, you can probably even find pictures with a google search.

hackenslash

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Thanks  :D I have a question about the whales though. A direct quote from the site is "Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs." This evidence for macroevolution is based on a few rare mutations rather than consistent observable physical laws. This certainly won't be enough to prove macroevolution once and for all... Am I missing something here or could you perhaps give me a more solid example?

You need proper definitions for the terms you're using. Once you have those, providing examples is trivial.

Evolution, properly and rigorously defined is 'change in allele frequencies over time' where an allele is a specific version of a given gene.

Microevolution is changes in allele frequencies in a population, or below species level.

Macroevolution is changes in allele frequencies in populations of species, at or above species level. There are three ways of looking at this.

The first is that, for example, it is known that many alleles are shared between different species. The are, in fact, many alleles that are shared between humans and other primates. The study of these inter-species genes is macroevolution.

Another way of dealing with it is speciation. When a population of organisms diverges due to some separation, the inception of new alleles between the two portions of the population can become such that interbreeding between the two populations, and thus the flow of genes, becomes impossible. AT this point, we have a speciation event. The talkorigins archive provides a pretty good list of observed instances of speciation.

The third way of looking at it involves exctinction. Where a population of organisms goes to extinction, the frequency of all alleles for that population goes from some to none, thus constituting a macroevolutionary event.

There is one instance that deals with the latter two ways of looking at macroevolution. There are a few 'ring species' that have been identified. This is where there is a continuous line of population, but in which gene flow occurs in stages throughout the population, so that every sub-species can interbreed with its immediate neighbours, and even slightly beyond, but in which the separation is such that the ends of the chain cannot interbreed. When an extinction event occurs in the middle of the chain such that the populations either side of the break cannot interbreed, we have a macroevolutionary event in both of these senses, because it is an extinction event that also constitutes a speciation event.

Hope that helps.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Voter

Quote from: "Whitney"Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/  :D
You should at least link directly to their evidence of macroevolution page.

The first one is a bait-and-switch and fails though, so maybe it is best to leave it vague.
Quote from: "An anonymous atheist poster here"Your world view is your world view. If you keep it to yourself then I don't really care what it is. Trouble is you won't keep it to yourself and that's fine too. But if you won't keep your beliefs to yourself you have no right, no right whatsoever, not to have your world view bashed. You make your wo

McQ

Quote from: "Voter"
Quote from: "Whitney"Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/  :D
You should at least link directly to their evidence of macroevolution page.

The first one is a bait-and-switch and fails though, so maybe it is best to leave it vague.

Maybe it's best for you to read the links given you already, before posting such a snarky comment. If ever anyone wanted to leave things vague and poorly worded (or misworded), it is the community of people who try and support IT/Creationism.

Recusant already provided you another source http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php which I also will provide you. It is a very basic level, easy to read source and therefore, shouldn't require much time to go through. Hope it is helpful.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

McQ

I owe an apology to Voter as those links weren't meant for him, but for Bubblepot. If anyone wants to actually learn about Evolutionary Theory though, I still say it's best to really go at it from any source that is not an ID/Creationism source, as those are not credible sources.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Whitney

Quote from: "Voter"
Quote from: "Whitney"Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/  :D
You should at least link directly to their evidence of macroevolution page.

The first one is a bait-and-switch and fails though, so maybe it is best to leave it vague.

I don't like to waste my time doing research for people who don't care and are trolling the forum...so I just typed in the main address from memory.

Bubblepot

Quote from: "Tank"Hi Bubblepot

As you appear to have issues concerning the facts about evolution I would suggest you get a copy of this book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and read it. It's an excellent book that explains in detail the evidences for evolution. It's better than Dawkins 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and eminently more readable than Darwins Origin of Species (which is very long in the tooth now).

Welcome aboard.

Regards
Chris

Yes I read that. However there are many points on which I disagree. I feel that I could write a better book, giving a more accurate case for evolution.

Quote from: "Recusant"I sincerely doubt that you had time to go though the complete TalkOrigins Archive.  Maybe it's too intimidating for you.  I'll tell you what, I'm going to provide another link, which is specifically dedicated to correcting common misperceptions about biological evolution.  It's called Understanding Evolution. It's put together by U C Berkely, and it might be more accessible for you to go through.  If the answers to your questions aren't there, we can work on them later.
I'm sorry but the answers to my questions weren't there.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"
Quote from: "Bubblepot"Thanks  :D I have a question about the whales though. A direct quote from the site is "Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs." This evidence for macroevolution is based on a few rare mutations rather than consistent observable physical laws. This certainly won't be enough to prove macroevolution once and for all... Am I missing something here or could you perhaps give me a more solid example?

You need proper definitions for the terms you're using. Once you have those, providing examples is trivial.

Evolution, properly and rigorously defined is 'change in allele frequencies over time' where an allele is a specific version of a given gene.

Microevolution is changes in allele frequencies in a population, or below species level.

Macroevolution is changes in allele frequencies in populations of species, at or above species level. There are three ways of looking at this.

The first is that, for example, it is known that many alleles are shared between different species. The are, in fact, many alleles that are shared between humans and other primates. The study of these inter-species genes is macroevolution.

Another way of dealing with it is speciation. When a population of organisms diverges due to some separation, the inception of new alleles between the two portions of the population can become such that interbreeding between the two populations, and thus the flow of genes, becomes impossible. AT this point, we have a speciation event. The talkorigins archive provides a pretty good list of observed instances of speciation.

The third way of looking at it involves exctinction. Where a population of organisms goes to extinction, the frequency of all alleles for that population goes from some to none, thus constituting a macroevolutionary event.

There is one instance that deals with the latter two ways of looking at macroevolution. There are a few 'ring species' that have been identified. This is where there is a continuous line of population, but in which gene flow occurs in stages throughout the population, so that every sub-species can interbreed with its immediate neighbours, and even slightly beyond, but in which the separation is such that the ends of the chain cannot interbreed. When an extinction event occurs in the middle of the chain such that the populations either side of the break cannot interbreed, we have a macroevolutionary event in both of these senses, because it is an extinction event that also constitutes a speciation event.

Hope that helps.

Thanks this helps a lot. I'll reply to the others when i have more time.

hackenslash

Quote from: "Bubblepot"
Quote from: "DJAkuma"They do in fact develop hind limbs here and there, you can probably even find pictures with a google search.

I disagree. Whales are basically giant fish; fish don't have limbs.

Err, no. Whales are not fish, and indeed they are only related extremely distantly. Their closests relatives are hippopotami, and then domestic cattle. And they do indeed have vestigial limbs.



There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.