By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Greatest scientific evidence for evolution?

Scoobes on 08 October 2009

@ angrypoolman. Do you know how much DNA we share with apes?

Actually scrap that, do you know how much DNA we share with a banana?!

If we look at the DNA sequences of organisms you can actually trace the close links between species. This along with the detailed fossil record, studies with microorganisms and vestigial organs are all evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Of course, then we have the proteomics projects that are currently underway to add further evidence. The logic is all there to be understood.

Also, science is constantly changing. I see this as a good thing. The scientific community is huge and everyone has there own work and presents new evidence to the community all the time improving our understanding of the world.

Oh, and the theory of evolution is the basis for a good quantity of work in Bioengineering. rather than natural selection we speed up mutation of DNA to produce enzymes and artificially select for the trait we are looking for. It even called "Directed Evolution".




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 08 October 2009

No it still seems impossible to tell dogs and wolves apart genetically from what i can tell.

http://ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/22/james-serpell-dog-breeding.html

SERPELL: No, you can't distinguish between dog breeds with existing genetic techniques. In fact, you can't even tell the difference between a dog and a wolf reliably. Some genetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA place the wolf in the middle of all the dog breeds, making the wolf look like another breed. Also, you can have two individuals from the same breed placed miles apart on a DNA map. In England, when they decided to ban the American pit bull terrier, they immediately had trouble identifying the dog. There were so many hybrids, the law had to be modified.



angrypoolman on 08 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
letsdance said:
angrypoolman said:
letsdance said:
Evolution is indeed fact... but in the sense that over time something changes in order to adapt to something new. The theory of evolution you are refering to is the biggest crap theory of the worlds creation there is.

Well the term evolution is a confusing one, as it has many different meanings. Evolution really is a fact, but extrapolating data and assuming that one kind of animal can change into another is something that I am not ready to accept.


Same with me. If we came from gorillas how come only some of us evolved.

*SIGH*

We didn't evolve from gorillas, Gorillas and humans have a common ancestor. This common ancestor isn't alive today, it evolved into many species. for example our common ancestor that was a proto-primate would have evolved into humans, apes, gorillas, monkeys and whatever other primates exist today.

Do you seriously think that one animal can only evolve into another one? Of course not, animals evolve to suit their environment, two of the same animal living in two different environments will evolve into to two distinct species over hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of years.

thank you for clearing this up, this is a common misconception about evolution.



Wii code: 8578 3842 6416 3239

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=90465

angrypoolman on 08 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
letsdance said:
Rath said:
Fair enough, that last insult was fairly petty =P. I just find it amusing that someone is claiming the fossil record is a scam =P.

In any case those sources are not meant to be in depth - they are to give an overview of a subject, something that wikipedia is fine for.

If I were posting detailed evidence of anything I wouldn't use wikipedia, but it really is very good for giving a general overview of something.

However if you want;
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco1.htm


I find it funny that someone is claiming fossil records are proof. I mean... youre telling me fossils are proof of evolution... I mean... as rare as fossils are (and they are very rare) you claim it proves of evolution...

So let me get this straight.

A. A rare occurance of finding fossils

B. All of them pristine condition that over the billions of years hasn't been tampered with.

C. With the limited amount of fossils found you can prove that the species found in these fossils are all related when the fossils found are years and years and years apart and they weren't deformed or mutated or tampered or damaged.

So the proof you need to support macro evolution has to be one that can be observed within our lifetime? You can't say that to discredit evolution, fossil records are accurate enough to prove evolution. The observations can be seen repeatedly and the fossil records are strong.

How about macro evolution that has been observed within human history, with well documented records? Is that acceptable? Look up the evolution of the dog, humans domesticated wolves around 14,000 years ago. For years the wolves* hadn't evolved at a particularly fast rate because they were well adapted to their environment. But all of a sudden there was a major shift in their environment and evolution occurred extremely rapidly. From those few species of wolf that were domesticated 14,000 years ago we now have countless breeds of dog, because of the amount of different environments domestication brought. This has been recorded over the course of human history.

Ask yourself, does a chihuahua and a great dane look and act exactly the same? Because we have sufficient evidence to prove that they both evolved from a common ancestor in the space of only a few thousand years.

Source

* When I say wolves I mean an ancestor of the wolf.

i dont get it, what is so great about the fossil record? all you know about any fossil is that it is something that died a long time ago. we dont know if it had any kids and we dont know what kind of conditions these fossils underwent before we discover them. also, correct me if im wrong, but dont humity and moisture make it hard to radiometrically date these things accurately?

i dont have a problem with a wolf and a cayote and a modern day dog having a common ancestor, im sure it was some dog like creature. also, you dont know the relationship there was between those wolves and humans. you can say they were domesticated all you want, but at the end of the day, all you can do is guess with some bones you found in the dirt.



Wii code: 8578 3842 6416 3239

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=90465

angrypoolman on 08 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
Bacteria.

You can actually WATCH bacteria evolve... watch it's DNA change and it become totally different strains of bacteria.

I couldn't agree more Kasz.

E-Coli is a prime example of this.

isnt that still a bacteria? i understand that e-coli was able to metabolise citrate after a few generations, but how is this proof that humans came from bacteria?

im not trying to be contrary, im just trying to understand this.



Wii code: 8578 3842 6416 3239

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=90465

Around the Network
angrypoolman on 08 October 2009
WessleWoggle said:
Vestigial organs?

Vestigial organs tell me evolution is true or the planning for life on earth was fucked.

what vestigial organs?



Wii code: 8578 3842 6416 3239

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=90465

angrypoolman on 08 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
Alterego-X said:
I believe that the logic behind the evolution theory is mostly accurate.

On the ther hand, I'm not sure that it actually explains the origin of life, or just the reason for its structure.


There are still some pretty big holes in the theory, for example about the origin of humans. Most existing fossils are either obviously human, or animal. But scientists directly TRY to prove that their new finding is the missing link. I'm not saying that it's an evolutionist conspiracy, it is just natural that they try to make their findings more important than they are.

Artist renderings usually show most old human and ape remains as mostly furry, tool-using creatures with an ape's face and human hands, standing on their back feet, and working in a team, even when the whole species only exists as a small skull fragment, or a few ribs, and the rest is speculation.

Evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life. It's supposed to explain the origin of species. Abiogenesis is supposed to explain the origin of life. 

or the diversity of life



Wii code: 8578 3842 6416 3239

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=90465

angrypoolman on 08 October 2009
highwaystar101 said:
WessleWoggle said:
Vestigial organs?

Vestigial organs tell me evolution is true or the planning for life on earth was fucked.

I would like to second this. If life was created then why would we have useless organs that are functional in other species that are closely related to us?

The whale is a great example of vestigial organs in evolution.

are you talking about the whale's supposed 'feet'? correct me if im wrong, but as far as i know, those bones connect to some very important muscles that has to do with getting baby whales. also, i think that you are going to need a little bit more evidence than those little bones to conclude that whales were once land dwelling creatures. do you know of anything else that confirms this notion?



Wii code: 8578 3842 6416 3239

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=90465

angrypoolman on 08 October 2009

i gotta go to school guys, ill be back later



Wii code: 8578 3842 6416 3239

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=90465

Rath on 08 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
No it still seems impossible to tell dogs and wolves apart genetically from what i can tell.

http://ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/22/james-serpell-dog-breeding.html

SERPELL: No, you can't distinguish between dog breeds with existing genetic techniques. In fact, you can't even tell the difference between a dog and a wolf reliably. Some genetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA place the wolf in the middle of all the dog breeds, making the wolf look like another breed. Also, you can have two individuals from the same breed placed miles apart on a DNA map. In England, when they decided to ban the American pit bull terrier, they immediately had trouble identifying the dog. There were so many hybrids, the law had to be modified.

Oh I thought you were implying there was no consistent genetic difference =P.

I'm guessing that a part of the reason is that the genome hasn't been sequenced for either the dog or the wolf, we don't actually know the complete genetics of either.