The Evidence of Evolution

Awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome.

I was thinking of writing something like this, but I'm really lazy. I think it's better that you got to it because I'm sure this is much better than anything I would have done.

I don't understand how so many people doubt that evolution happens despite all the mountains of evidence we have. And the fact that everything we find supports the theory. And the fact that there is absolutely no debate among experts in the field. We've trusted the scientific community for so long on so many different things, why doubt them now, and on something that's so strongly supported.

Anyway, thank you so much for writing this, and I hope this opens up some people's eyes.

I would also suggest reading Darwin's four main books:

From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books (Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle, The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals)

This represents a mental voyage from Darwin's pre evolution life as a naturalist, cataloguing his journey's through the world, to his development of the Theory of Evolution. This is where the science took shape. Modern evolutionists like Richard Dawkins have then continued to study and research and put this basic theory to the test, improving it when other advances in science cast more light.

All classic books! I really like your article.

Nice article. In terms of dating the fossils, would you not be better served using isotopic labeling of the fossils and the things around them? Strata analysis seems a bit arbitrary unless references are used. Isotope ratios seem a bit more direct. I'm not sure, however, if palentologists are able to accurately make use of this technique...especially if you're talking about tens of millions of years (do the surrounding isotopes truly reflect the age of the fossil itself?). I know since we've estimated the age of the earth by isotopic labeling, we do have the scientific probe to do such a thing. It really depends on how relevant the data is. Just something to consider.

Once again somone thinks that because a person believes in creationism and not evolution, we must not know the evidence.

Well, I do know the evidence very well. The evidence isn't necessarily in debate. It's the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

For example, the genetic evidence you offered. From a purely scientific view it makes sense. But, it doesn't allow for the possibility that maybe genetic information is so similar because one creator God created all of it. If the possibility of a creator is allowed, then other explanations are possible. I believe this is why evolution is generally looked upon as a godless view. Sure, it could allow for a God, but it's the only theory that allows for the lack of one. If God is added into the equation, it changes everything. Since the existence of God cannot be disproved, it would make sense to allow for this possibility and not just assume that it happened a certain way regardless of the existance of a creator. Afterall, a creator could make my feet bones similar to that of a whale's fins, but it doesn't mean that the whale and I are related.

praetor605 writes: Science can not test for god, so it has no place in a scientific theory

So, because you can't test for God, a scientific theory must assume a god cannot exist? That seems like a very closed minded approach. You also cannot test history. Does that mean we ignore it's relevance and pretend it never occurred? Or, do we take things we know we cannot test, realizing that they could be (or contain) driving forces behind the phenomenon we are trying to look at, and use rational thought in conjunction with the evidence and scientific tests to come to our conclusions?

Just because we cannot perform a litmus test to see if a god exists, we shouldn't assume that it means that a god doesn't exist. To eliminate the possibility of God before we evaluate the beginnings of the universe is going to produce a godless result. It would make more sense from a scientific stance, to assume that God could be part of the equation. Note that I didn't say you need to force God into the equation, but I said he should be considered a possibility. Anything else is closed minded.

What a terrific article. Like LankaFool, I had considered trying to hammer out something similar myself and also like him, I can't imagine doing nearly as good a job as you've done. You've covered the science well (of course you would, you're a scientist) and have treated the debate fairly. I'm anything like this I would have written could not nearly have matched you in quality of facts and tone of writing. I especially appreciate you're inclusion of evolution does not interfere with the belief in a higher power. That is an absolutely correct statement regarding the independence of religion and science.

One suggestion: being a scientist, you should feel free to add data points to this article as you come across them. I'd even suggest adding even more links for further reading. If I come by any good ones, I'll e-mail them to you for your review. For now on, I'm simply going direct anyone to this article as the Newsvine standard on the background of science as it pertains to evolution theory. Thank you very much for writing such a great article.

Now I'm going to go order Dawkins' book.

So, because you can't test for God, a scientific theory must assume a god cannot exist? That seems like a very closed minded approach.

Evolution says nothing about a god or any other higher power. Does evolution require a god? Of course not. Is there room for a god with evolution? Sure, why not. Just like any other scientific theory. Does gravity require a god? Nope, but no one gets all upset over that.

UKMatt writes:

I am from Pluto. You can't disprove that, so therefore by your logic, you must allow for the possibility that I am from Pluto.

Does that logic make sense to anyone else?

No, since I'm pretty sure that can be disproved by science.

I find your article an excellent overview of the most salient points regarding evolution. I might suggest, however, that you discuss the difference between "evolution" and "natural selection". I'm sure you know what I refer to, but I will briefly summarize: evolution is the process of change and natural selection is the force driving this change.

This is an important distinction that is seldom made in the creationist debates. If this distinction is made, it is much harder to refute the evolution part of the theory, and you can discuss alternative forms of selection that have since been discarded, such as Lamarkian selection.

You seem to give credence to higher truth than scientific fact. You refer to virtual facts, which I find silly, and you place truth in quotes at one point. There is only truth, faith is what motivates people to believe when there is no basis in fact. Don't be shy. :-)

You say "The likelihood of these genes developing in all these different organisms and being so similar is incredibly high (though admittedly possible in a few cases) without the explanation of evolution." I'm sure you meant "remote" rather than "high". Quite confusing typo.

You say there is no consensus on origin, but I think that is no longer true. Richard Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker laid out the argument for emergent complexity. Most scientists believe they need no other explanation for the emergence of life than these simple principles. Dawkins is getting rather aggressive in his atheism in a two part BBC series that is not yet available in the US. I predict the culture wars are going to get much hotter in the near future as atheist scientists go at the creationists more aggressively, as Dawkins seems to be doing.

(Please pardon typos, this is my first experience with the Newsvine abomination of a text input box.)

praetor605,

you declare your intention to revive the "belief" in the "truth" of the Theory of Evolution («It is my intention to provide some of the evidence science currently has to support this vital theory since so many people here seem to believe there is none»), and you invite comments («I would like to have a real debate about evolution, the various methods it might use, and interesting facts or ideas you might have. »)

So I will give here my contribution to the debate, with comments that, I am afraid, you will find not as convinced as yours about the "facts", "truth" and "evidence" of Evolution.

A hypothesis is presented and evidence is collected to try and disprove it as well as allowing for certain trends and outcomes to be predicted. This hypothesis is changed and refined as new data is collected and trends are observed during research. After careful analysis, in a process that really never ends, the hypothesis is presented to the scientific community for verification (peer-review in most modern cases). If the hypothesis survives the scrutiny of the scientific community at large, it is relabelled a theory and is treated as virtual fact (especially to the general public) until a new theory (a hypothesis with confirmed evidence) comes along to change it (if and when that happens).[praetor605]

[Servetus #1] We can agree with the "definition of science given here. Essentially, it corresponds to Popper's criterion #2, that of Falsification. Popper's Criterion #1, which seems here to be assumed implicitly, is the requirement of Empirism, that is, the object of the study must ultimately be reconduced under sensory perception). The second part of praetor605's statement is less clearly consistent: it is not very clear if it is based on a strictly Popperian epistemology (a hypothesis, or a theory, is abandoned if it is "disproved" by evidence), or rather if a Kuhnian "sociology of knowledge" approach is taken, that is, what really matters is the "consensus" of the "scientific community", and a theory is replaced by another not because the new theory has better explanatory capability, but because more "consensus" of the "scientific community" coalesces on the new theory.

Are there some gaps in the fossil record? Yes, we do not have fossils showing every minor change in structure nor should we expect to. Fossil formation takes place only under certain conditions, so in other words, they are somewhat rare. However, scientists can predict what a fossil in a certain gap may look like based on what comes before and after. If we hold evolution to be "true" then these predictions should work, and history has shown us that they do. These "gaps" do not prevent us from being able to show many of the major steps leading to modern man. [praetor605]

[Servetus #2] This is all rather dubious. Applied to the specific situation, scientific "prediction" should mean the following. Suppose (see chart Chart of Human Evolution ) that only specimens of Homo Heidelbergensis (0.2 – 1 million years BCE) and of Homo Rudolphensis (1.8 – 2.1 million years BCE) had been dug up. Then, according to praetor605, the Theory of Evolution should be capable of "predicting" the features of the Homo "Gap-ensis" ("of the gap"), that is, again according to the chart, Homo Ergaster. Is it so in the specific case? Has it ever bee so in any other case of "Homo Gap-ensis"? Not to my knowledge.

The evolution of the eye (an ID favorite) is very similar in almost all organisms since some form of photosensitive cells evolved early on before many organisms branched off. Now, looking at how similar humans are to other organisms should allow us to make a "tree" of all organisms with animals such as primates being closer (more similar) and fish (less similar) being farther "away". Now that we have a basic tree, is there any way to confirm our theory? Yes, and that leads into genetic evidence. [praetor605]

[Servetus #3] Not only the eye of evolved animals very complex, but it is also difficult to explain. Based only on "genetic tree distance", how it is that, for instance, the eye of a mammal and the eye of an octopus are so strikingly similar, structure-wise and function-wise.

The best part about DNA comparison is that it is so reliable, we do not even need the fossil record or comparative anatomy to prove evolution, all we need to make evolution a verifiable theory is the genomic information we now have. [praetor605]

[Servetus #4] praetor605 either ignores, here, or pretends not to know, that the discovery of DNA is a difficulty to recon with, for ToE, rather than corroborating evidence. The DNA is an intrinsic ally stable structure. Most chance mutations lead to incapacity of reproduction, or to severe impairment of the individual affected. Whereas Darwin, and his enthusiastic successors (Haekel as example) for all thought the cell consisted of undifferentiated "protoplasm", we now know that the cell is a "machinery" or mind-boggling complexity, far more complex than the most sophisticated computer)

What usually occurs is that two groups of the same species will become separated, usually by the environment (islands or the formation of a valley for example). These two groups are isolated from each other and no longer interbreed. As time goes by, natural selection pushes the two species farther apart until they are no longer able to breed with each other. It is this inability to interbreed that classifies a different species. Science can look at two very similar species and hypothesize that they used to be the same species. Using all the methods I have mentioned, they almost always find this to be the case. Science has an enormous amount of data and evidence supporting evolution, even on a "macro" scale. [praetor605]

[Servetus #5] However much praetor605, resorting to "The Talk.Origins Archive", tries to convince us and, first of all, himself, that "Science has an enormous amount of data and evidence supporting evolution, even on a 'macro' scale", this is not at all the case. .First of all, it must be remarked that the one used by praetor605 is essentially Ernest Mayr's definition of species («A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed in nature to produce a fertile offspring » - 1942), and that it is strictly limited to sexually reproducing species. Besides, that simple "isolation" can, by itself produce such differentiation in the gene pools as to make fertile interbreeding impossible, is more than dubious. Even the case of the Larus Gall, a circumpolar species of Gall, until recently thought to have differentiated into new species by simple "geographical shift" (see Wikipedia's Ring Species), has recently been proved not to be correct. For a "classical" example of ring species which may not support the very notion of ring species after all, in fact more like a red herring , see the online article "The herring gull complex is not a ring species".

Finally, evolution does not interfere with the belief in a higher power. It does make the need for a higher power to exist in order to explain life on this planet unnecessary. [praetor605]

[Servetus #6] I do not think most people fully realize how this statement sums up the essential point of the present Evolution vs. Design debate. If, unlike more consequent Darwinists and atheists, like Dawkins and Dennett, we do not draw, from the fact that God is not needed to explain the features of the Universe, and of Life in particular, the most obvious (or Ockham razor) "inference to the best explanation" that God does not exist, we con only settle for a God who is at the antipodes of the Biblical God. The only God that is logically consistent with the "truth" of Evolution is the "Higher God" of ancient Gnosticism, who is too remote to be responsible for what we humans perceive as the imperfections of the Universe: which Universe becomes not the responsibility of the "Higher God", but of Evolution, which somehow take on the role of the "lesser", "clumsy" god of Gnosticism: the Demiurge.

However surprising this conclusion may seem, the Theory of Evolution, if not strictly limited within s scientific frame, becomes a "scientific mythology" effectively opening the way for the resurgence of Gnosticism we witness nowadays.

Newsvine user Siggi Arni seeded a great article from Scientific American. It serves as perfect compliment to Praetor605's post here. Here's a snip:

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

So, because you can't test for God, a scientific theory must assume a god cannot exist?

That's is how science works. Otherwise, one could postulate any internally consistent set of ideas as 'truth' (such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism), then what have you got?

Read up on Occam's Razor for a better and more complete explanation of this.

praetor605,

now that jason coleman and murat have pleaded in your favor, won't you come and give us you own pleading?

rminkler writes:
"praetor605 writes: Science can not test for god, so it has no place in a scientific theory"

So, because you can't test for God, a scientific theory must assume a god cannot exist?

Absolutely not. This is a very common mistake in logic that religious people often make. I think it's a primary cause of misunderstanding evolution and its consequences.

Science is based on observation, prediction, and our ability to disprove an hypothesis if it really isn't true. God can't be observed or disproved by scientific methods. Period. End of story. You cannot conclude anything about God using the scientific method. It's even possible that He planned it that way. We simply cannot know. That's why it's called faith.

So, because you can't test for God, a scientific theory must assume a god cannot exist?

Just want to refine my response in #19 to the above quote. What I should have included is:

"Because you can't test for God, a scientific theory cannot assume a god exists"

Finally, someone wrote The Post on Evolution that we have all sorta been vaguely interested in writing. I'm glad the one who finally wrote it is so well-versed and eloquent, this sums up the evidence pretty well. I'm currently halfway through The Ancestor's Tale myself, and I find it really interesting - it's amazing how much there is to learn.

Perhaps we can have a Tangle on this, in which case I will certainly nominate you to participate.

praetor605,

sorry if you felt I was pressing you for a reply. No hurry, I knew my comments needed to be duly "digested". I was just ironically noticing that Jason Coleman's and Murat's comments were an obvious pleading in your support, as they were indirect responses to my [S#1] and [S#6]. Your comment confirms that you (certainly not I) feel indebted to them both.

Further counter-comments, as needed

[S1_C] (Popper's Falsification vs. Kuhn's chit-chat) Your acceptance of Jason Coleman's reply as yours, with its "more recent elaborations on [Popper's] thinking" confirms that you start with a Popperian body, and end with a Kuhnian tail, as suspected. Kuhn's so called "sociology of knowledge", far from being an "expansion" of the "narrowest interpretation of [Popper's] principle", is the abandonment of science for irrationalism (see David Stove, Scientific Irrationalism, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, London, UK, © 2001, ISBN: 0-7658-0063-2).

[S2_C] (Gaps in the fossil record) Yours is no reply to my question. All you come up with is paleontologists coming up with "excellency guess" [sic]. Too little, if that is all, to speak about "scientific prediction".

[S3_C] (Closeness between Homo and Octopus is in the eye of the beholder) Sorry, but what you provide is no scientific statement, only narrative. How closely related is Homo with "cousin" Octopus, as you define "fairly recent" [sic] the split of their respective "branches"?

[S4_C] (DNA is easy to explain for the beholder of early earth conditions ) If you boldly state that "DNA is the easiest thing to reconcile with evolution", I would suggest a good book on DNA is needed for you. And how you go as far as kidding that "we know [sic] many of the parts of DNA form readily under early earth conditions", God only knows, literally.

[S5_C] (How much mutation for speciation? ) Your definition is essentially identical to Mayr's, and insists on "capability of interbreeding" as the key factor. Again, no account is made for non-sexually reproducing life forms. I am not denying the importance of difference of environment for speciation (allopatric, sympatric, parapatric, polyploidy). But it doesn't take much effort of imagination to realize that to insist on this approach leads to a ground totally uncharted by Darwin's original approach, which considers mutation as the essential speciation "engine", and natural selection as the speciation "filter".

Ultimately, I point out that the circular character of the following statements seems to have escaped you entirely:

These two groups are isolated from each other and no longer interbreed. As time goes by, natural selection pushes the two species farther apart until they are no longer able to breed with each other. It is this inability to interbreed that classifies a different species. Science can look at two very similar species and hypothesize that they used to be the same species. [praetor605]

Apparently, the conclusion is that two "groups", just by "isolation", "as time goes by", become two "species", even without any mutation taking place. Well ... try it again, Sam!

[S6_C] (Which God fits Evolution best? Preferably none, but if you insist … ). Certainly I didn't need murat to remind me of Occam's razor (true, I called him Ockham, but they are the same person, you know?). I did not expect you to engage on my elaborations on metaphysical evolutionism as a vicious form of Gnosticism. But that is the way it is.