Happy Atheist Forum

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?

Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/)  

Thanks   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?

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

"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.  

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 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16347-review-iwhy-evolution-is-truei-by-jerry-coyne.html) 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

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 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php). 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.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Thanks   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.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Thanks   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.

Quote from: "Whitney"Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/)  

You should at least link directly to their evidence of macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) page.

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

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/)  

You should at least link directly to their evidence of macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) 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.

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.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/)  

You should at least link directly to their evidence of macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) 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.

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 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16347-review-iwhy-evolution-is-truei-by-jerry-coyne.html) 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 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php). 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.

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.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.arizona.edu%2Fcourses%2FEEB182%2FLecture02%2Ffigures%2Fwhale.gif&hash=befbba39b058fcbc11885ce21afb29bc77b2576e)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edwardtbabinski.us%2Fwhales%2Fdolphin_limbs.jpg&hash=931966f294c85b82321b4f22a8dc48168c2a19af)

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"Done:  http://www.talkorigins.org/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/)  :D

You should at least link directly to their evidence of macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) 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.[/quote]
So are you going to enlighten me on what you meant by "a long time ago?" do you, for an example, have dates?

Quote from: "Bubblepot"Thanks. However, I have a question about the section of the site where it says "From embryological studies it is known that two bones of a developing reptile eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw (first reported in 1837 by the German embryologist Karl Reichert). However, in the marsupial mammalian embryo, the same two structures develop, not into parts of the jaw, but into the anvil and hammer of the mammalian ear. This developmental information, coupled with common descent, indicates that the mammalian middle ear bones were derived and modified from the reptilian jaw bones during evolution (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896).

Accordingly, there is a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear (compare the intermediates discussed in prediction 1.4, example 2) (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275)."
The example given in the below section contradicts the example given above?

I guess I'm missing something.  Where is the contradiction between these two examples?

Quote from: "Bubblepot"...my goal here is to crush the creationist viewpoint once and for all...

Interesting, but futile.  Scientists have already supplied voluminous evidence that evolution (both "micro" and "macro") has occurred and is occurring.  Creationists deny it.  You can compile a very nice dossier of said evidence and it will have negligible effect (if any) on those who've chosen to assert that their god is responsible for the diversity of life we see around us.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"So are you going to enlighten me on what you meant by "a long time ago?" do you, for an example, have dates?

One famous early example of evidence which supported the theory of evolution was the discovery in 1861 of Archaeopteryx lithographica (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html).

QuoteFrom Examples of Evolution (http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html):
The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx.

Bubblepot, I suggest you try some science websites and various forums on the subjects that involve discussions on Evolution. Why pick an atheist forum? Atheism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily linked by anything other than some basic correlatives. Lots of non-atheists are evolutionary supporters and teachers.

Go to credible science sites on: biology, genetics, and evolutionary theory for the details you seek and you will learn what you need, without wasting a lot of time getting responses from people who are not experts in the subject areas.

By all means, welcome here, but don't expect people to believe that you are not simply a troll playing games, and don't expect to have all your questions answered quickly or fully. We have members who are knowledgable in many areas, but the information you seek is better found elsewhere.

Quote from: "McQ"...I suggest you try some science websites and various forums on the subjects that involve discussions on Evolution.

Excellent advice.  One particular forum that you might find useful is Biology Online (http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/), which has a section devoted to "Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution." (http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/forum-14.html)

Quote from: "Bubblepot"So are you going to enlighten me on what you meant by "a long time ago?" do you, for an example, have dates?

I'm waiting because I think you are just trolling...

Quote from: "hackenslash"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.

By this logic you might as well say that snakes are not lizards because snakes don't have limbs, (which they do by the way: check out http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5 ... 0.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5460/2010.abstract), and that's just for starters).
Besides, "fish" is a very ambiguous term; depending on its usage it can be viewed as practically all the aquatic life in the ocean or a few select species.

Quote from: "Recusant"I guess I'm missing something.  Where is the contradiction between these two examples?

I'll give you a clue: compare "the mammalian middle ear bones were derived and modified from the reptilian jaw bones during evolution"; and "these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear", and then look at this example as a whole on its original page.

Quote from: "Recusant"Interesting, but futile.  Scientists have already supplied voluminous evidence that evolution (both "micro" and "macro") has occurred and is occurring.  Creationists deny it.  You can compile a very nice dossier of said evidence and it will have negligible effect (if any) on those who've chosen to assert that their god is responsible for the diversity of life we see around us.

I disagree; by the time I'm finished here not even creationists will be able to deny it.

Quote from: "Recusant"One famous early example of evidence which supported the theory of evolution was the discovery in 1861 of Archaeopteryx lithographica (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html).

Please respect Whitney enough to let her speak and think for herself.

QuoteFrom Examples of Evolution (http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html):
The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx.

[/quote]
Wow, now this is actually a very interesting find. Do you have pics?

Quote from: "McQ"Bubblepot, I suggest you try some science websites and various forums on the subjects that involve discussions on Evolution. Why pick an atheist forum? Atheism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily linked by anything other than some basic correlatives. Lots of non-atheists are evolutionary supporters and teachers.

In answer to your question, shouldn't a forum that has an entire section devoted to evolution be a good enough choice? Or are you saying that an atheist forum is an inappropriate place to discuss things such as evolution and science?

Quote from: "McQ"Go to credible science sites on: biology, genetics, and evolutionary theory for the details you seek and you will learn what you need, without wasting a lot of time getting responses from people who are not experts in the subject areas.

As I said, this site has an entire section devoted to evolution; I would expect that many here are experts on the topic. Is this presumption wrong?

Quote from: "McQ"By all means, welcome here, but don't expect people to believe that you are not simply a troll playing games, and don't expect to have all your questions answered quickly or fully. We have members who are knowledgable in many areas, but the information you seek is better found elsewhere.

Don't expect to have questions about evolution and science answered fully? Sorry, but could you explain this to me?

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "McQ"...I suggest you try some science websites and various forums on the subjects that involve discussions on Evolution.

Excellent advice.  One particular forum that you might find useful is Biology Online (http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/), which has a section devoted to "Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution." (http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/forum-14.html)

While I appreciate the link, I find it a little surprising that when someone walks in with questions about evolution they'd just be bumped off to some other site. Besides, this site is about biology; evolution isn't just about biology. Any scientist will tell you that evolution is a subject that will appear in every branch of science, whether biological, geological, psychological and even astrological. In fact I'd say it's a bit narrow minded of you to try and look at evolution from a purely biological perspective.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Bubblepot"So are you going to enlighten me on what you meant by "a long time ago?" do you, for an example, have dates?

I'm waiting because I think you are just trolling...

So, let's analyze this logically for a moment. You specifically said

Quote from: "Whitney"It [evolution] was proven once and for all a long time ago.

Now this was after I requested a single piece of solid evidence for evolution; absolutely anything would do just so long as it was solid. Don't think that's very vague response to such a query? And now that I've calmly asked for the specific date you thought of when evolution was proven once and for all, you're not able to provide this either? Now I might have completely misunderstood what you're trying to say here so correct me if I'm wrong, but is this what you're trying to tell me?

Give it up, Bubblepot. You're not fooling anybody. You're not really trying to prove evolution once and for all, you're trying to disprove it. And you're failing. Stop being a troll.

By the way, this site doesn't have an entire sub-forum dedicated to evolution. It has an entire sub-forum dedicated to creationism. I think there's a slight difference between the two.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Give it up, Bubblepot. You're not fooling anybody. You're not really trying to prove evolution once and for all, you're trying to disprove it.

What makes you think that? Or did you come to this thread to try and start trouble? Anyway try not to feel too intimidated that I'm actually asking for evidence, LegendarySandwhich; that would be just what the creationists want. This thread will serve to strengthen evolution's position, I hope so much that creationism is actually disproved once and for all. You could even learn something from it, if you paid more attention to what's being discussed instead of groundlessly accusing people. (it doesn't say good things about you) Besides, evolution could never be disproved as it was already proven once and for all a long time ago. Just ask Whitney.

Quote from: "Bubblepot"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Give it up, Bubblepot. You're not fooling anybody. You're not really trying to prove evolution once and for all, you're trying to disprove it.

What makes you think that? Or did you come to this thread to try and start trouble? Anyway try not to feel too intimidated that I'm actually asking for evidence, LegendarySandwhich; that would be just what the creationists want. This thread will serve to strengthen evolution's position, I hope so much that creationism is actually disproved once and for all. You could even learn something from it, if you paid more attention to what's being discussed instead of groundlessly accusing people. (it doesn't say good things about you) Besides, evolution could never be disproved as it was already proven once and for all a long time ago. Just ask Whitney.

Bye bye bubblepot, you won't be around here much longer unless you significantly improve your attitude. You don't fit, and probably will be shown the door within, oh I'd guess another dozen posts, unless you start behaving in a considerably less 'trollish' manner. This place is not a democracy, it's a beneficent dictatorship, you post here because Whitney lets you. Unless you can grasp that you won't be around much longer.

Bubblepot, you are The lucky recipient of two board warnings in one. You have decided to continue to try and move forward with your very obvious and pathetic ruse of creating a thread that will once and for all (sad head shake) prove evolution true, while everyone here knows that is not your intent. This board is the place to discuss it, not prove it, as it has already been done, and the evidence for it can be learned about on sites dedicated to evolution. These have been given you. Additionally, you have taken to personal attacks in the Atheism thread, which will not be tolerated.

And I happen to be one of the people who has been credentialed in the biological sciences and who also works in the field of Oncology via targeted molecules and therapies through genetic manipulation. That does qualify me to tell you that you need to look at other sites and that this forum is a place to discuss the subjects.  

I was considering responding more, but it simply isn't worth the effort. Your next infraction in this regard will result in a banning from the forum of one week, then a permanent ban if the behavior continues. Either you accept that or not. There is no debate on this.