Proof of Evolution

[Morlock]

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery

"By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million"

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

 

[taypeng81]

Morlock, i hate to say this, i read these creationists theories on the young earth (briefly) and i think that often they are stretching certain data to fit and support their theory. By this i don't mean i know more than them but just that not all of it sounds right to me.

e.g. the sun is measured to be receding at 5 feet/hr and they use this to make a statement that the sun cant be 4.5 billion years old because it was it would have been engulfing Mercury at one point. but this is making an assumption that the rate at which the sun shrinks has been constant throughout the ages. This is not proven.

Besides questioning dating methods... do they have evidence or scientific research that proves that the earth is really less than 10,000 years old?

btw interesting info on the dinosaur fossil. maybe dinos were around fairly recent, cool.

 

[Morlock]

Morlock, i hate to say this, i read these creationists theories on the young earth (briefly) and i think that often they are stretching certain data to fit and support their theory. By this i don't mean i know more than them but just that not all of it sounds right to me.

e.g. the sun is measured to be receding at 5 feet/hr and they use this to make a statement that the sun cant be 4.5 billion years old because it was it would have been engulfing Mercury at one point. but this is making an assumption that the rate at which the sun shrinks has been constant throughout the ages. This is not proven.

Besides questioning dating methods... do they have evidence or scientific research that proves that the earth is really less than 10,000 years old?

Honestly I don't know, and I never intended to prove that I know in the first place. all I have seen are evidences that might suggest that it is a young earth but it is debatable and I am not ready to present them here as facts. I'm against people teaching them as facts in a public school if they do, but do we know of any schools that does it? All I know is that Evolution is being taught as fact in public schools even though the evidences are still debatable.

 

[empihsrow]

I provide evidence from my knowledge that I got from magazines, tv, internet etc. If I tell you about the whale evolution, of course theres no way I can prove it to you in a forum

As an academic, you're threading on waters by endorsing magazines, Internet or the TV as your sources for evidences.

However I do provide evidence (whether anyone believes the evidence itself) but so far from the other side, I've only gotten doubts of evolution and not even evidence against evolution, instead of actual evidence for creation

To make people believe, you need to show its credibility. Just merely stating it or writing it down will not do you any good.

 

[Vaiyen]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Excellent link!

 

[empihsrow]

Honestly I don't know, and I never intended to prove that I know in the first place. all I have seen are evidences that might suggest that it is a young earth but it is debatable and I am not ready to present them here as facts. I'm against people teaching them as facts in a public school if they do, but do we know of any schools that does it? All I know is that Evolution is being taught as fact in public schools even though the evidences are still debatable.

You've got it!

And I'm glad you're able to see both sides of the story.

For my duration in this thread, I'd been advocating the flaws that debunk both the Creationist and Evolutionist theories as something not totally true and definite but apparently no one likes to read about it and instead continues the endless spin-off "God-vs-Science" debate.

 

[hifi_killer]

As an academic, you're threading on waters by endorsing magazines, Internet or the TV as your sources for evidences.

To make people believe, you need to show its credibility. Just merely stating it or writing it down will not do you any good.

credibility of source (in the context of science) does not depend so much on its origins. Instead credibility is judged on the basis of the methodological foundation of these findings. I.e if you cant fault any of the methods used in deriving the data, then there no reason to condemn that as not credible.

The problem with wikipedia, and some other internet sources is that they do not adequately explain the methodology of these findings.

 

[hifi_killer]

Honestly I don't know, and I never intended to prove that I know in the first place. all I have seen are evidences that might suggest that it is a young earth but it is debatable and I am not ready to present them here as facts. I'm against people teaching them as facts in a public school if they do, but do we know of any schools that does it? All I know is that Evolution is being taught as fact in public schools even though the evidences are still debatable.

Are you sure? i dont remember being taught that way.. And i do remember science textbooks also making a clear distinction as to what is a fact and whats a theory and hypothesis.

tertiary institutions generally adopt multi -theoretical approach to controversial issues, also the proliferation of academic freedom has encourage a much more democratic way in which theories are evaluated.

 

[empihsrow]

credibility of source (in the context of science) does not depend so much on its origins. Instead credibility is judged on the basis of the methodological foundation of these findings. I.e if you cant fault any of the methods used in deriving the data, then there no reason to condemn that as not credible.

Well, it cannot be debatable that the methodology does matter a lot but often than not, the origins of the sources do matter a lot too. People like to twist and play with words(I believe it's an inherent nature for men to tinker), thus even if the origins do show credible research and methodologies, you still have to take into account of its origin and any possible prejudice or bias.

That's a reason why academic journals are the more preferred sources of information as compared to documentaries in the TV?

 

[hifi_killer]

ok choose one, is it better suited to live in the water with gills or lungs? if gills, why hasn't whales (in 25 million years) evolved into gills since it's the better evolutionary path. and if lungs, why hasn't fish, most if not all, discarded gills and grown lungs? evolution is basically changing to survive, so you have to choose between which system is better and choose it. the fact that whales haven't changed, and are still "diving and swimming awesomely" accounts better for ID than evolution.

I think theres abit of a conceptual misunderstanding on your side.

so even if gills is more adaptive to aquatic lifeforms,

Why has whales evolved gills?
Yes gills may be adaptive in underwater environment, but unfortunately , it is not the MOST important adaptation for whales.
Lungs could have more capacity for oxygen. More oxygen = more complex biological systems, bigger brains. It isnt a coincidence that aqautic organisms with lungs have larger brain mass to body mass ratio compared to those with gills

also,bigger brain = more advance social behaviors

and it could be social behaviours > gills in evolutionary adaptation for whales.
Besides whales, dolphins are also 'clearly' selected for their social behaviours too.

and it not that fair to compare fishes and whales like that, their living, social environment, ecosystems are so different, and this gives rise to differences in natural selection criteria.

 

[Morlock]

Are you sure? i dont remember being taught that way.. And i do remember science textbooks also making a clear distinction as to what is a fact and whats a theory and hypothesis.

tertiary institutions generally adopt multi -theoretical approach to controversial issues, also the proliferation of academic freedom has encourage a much more democratic way in which theories are evaluated.

Sorry I cannot say for singapore as I did not study here and dont know what textbooks you where using, but from where I studied, it is the case. I can assure that in america this is the case.

 

[hifi_killer]

Well, it cannot be debatable that the methodology does matter a lot but often than not, the origins of the sources do matter a lot too. People like to twist and play with words(I believe it's an inherent nature for men to tinker), thus even if the origins do show credible research and methodologies, you still have to take into account of its origin and any possible prejudice or bias.

That's a reason why academic journals are the more preferred sources of information as compared to documentaries in the TV?

the origins of the source is perhaps a big thing in humanities and arts, but not so much in science.
Theres not much room for bias in science, because there is always an established, systematic way in which evidence are interpreted. Such guidelines are usually empirically validated to provide the highest degree of reliability, validity. Some imperfection may exist, but still it doesnt result in the amazing heterogenity of interpretations in arts/humanities

TV programmes dont usually conduct their own research. Well, where do these programmes get their info from? obviously from established findings. But they 'shape' and 'tweak' these findings for mass appeal, and do not critically examine the methodology of these scientific findings. And so, they may be less credible, but you cannot generalise and tv programmes to be like that. Clearly, Nat Geo and discovery channel are very much respected by academics

 

[Vaiyen]

That's a reason why academic journals are the more preferred sources of information as compared to documentaries in the TV?

TV documentaries get a lot of their material from journals.

 

[hifi_killer]

hifi_killer: no lah, my exams are still ongoing. Open book, so shouldnt be a big prob. What are you majoring in?

Yes thats what i thought so too yesterday... but it didnt work out for me. Open book only makes the 'natural selection' of answers more stringent.

I'm a psychology major.

 

[predz23]

genetic diversity and genetic stability are different terms. Genetic stability includes rate of mutation.

fishes are still around, i dont see skin growing on their gills? have not heard reports of other anomalies too. are scientist ignoring other evidences in favor of their theories?

Why do you always ask this?!?! Of course Fishes are still around, so what?!?! Today's fishes have evolved from ancient fish too, the parrot fish, the shark, the barracuda etc. Only because animals have evolved from fish doesn't mean the fish will go extinct. By some of them going on land, they're geographically isolated. I thought you would agree, that if a population gets separated, they would each evolve in their own way
Of course you don't see skin growing over gills, why should they be now?!? Why should they be growing over their gills when they live in water?

 

[taypeng81]

im asking you, you have a rationale mind. Does it makes any logical, rationale sense when scientist say fish evolve the ability to go onto land by growing skin on their gills. What environmental trigger is there for a fish to go onto land? And do we actually observe such a thing happening to fishes that are still around today????

Have you seen mudskippers with skin on their gills since they are already on land???

 

[predz23]

im asking you, you have a rationale mind. Does it makes any logical, rationale sense when scientist say fish evolve the ability to go onto land by growing skin on their gills. What environmental trigger is there for a fish to go onto land? And do we actually observe such a thing happening to fishes that are still around today????

Have you seen mudskippers with skin on their gills since they are already on land???

Fish started going on land to escape predators and find new food. They didn't evolve skin over their gills and then go on land, they went on land and then evolved skin over their gills, sealing them in, keeping them moist so they can absorb oxygen from the air.
Why would we be observing such a thing happening now? There's no real reason to expect this would be happening right now.
And why bring mudskippers into this? They're still mostly water animals, they adapted completely differently. They can breathe through their skin and their mouth, so theres no real reason to even question why they don't have skin over their gills.
Only because Species A evolved into species B and both species still exist today, doesn't mean that in the future, Species A should be showing signs of evolving into species B. Especially after all those millions of years of taking different evolutionary pathways. Evolution doesn't have a 'finish' line, where all fish must evolve to live on land, or all monkeys must evolve into humans etc.

 

[taypeng81]

If the reason for fish leaving the water is to escape predators, then that reason still exists today because fish still have predators. if evolution has not stopped, it also means a mudskipper or any species for that matter has reached the end of its evolutionary path.

Im bringing the mudskipper into the picture because it spends most of its time on land so it is the best candidate for showing signs of further adaptation to land. Also a fish cant decide to grow skin over its gills just because it wants to. A random mutation has to cause it.

 

[predz23]

If the reason for fish leaving the water is to escape predators, then that reason still exists today because fish still have predators. if evolution has not stopped, it also means a mudskipper or any species for that matter has reached the end of its evolutionary path.

Predators live on land now too. No animal has reached the end of its evolutionary path, unless it goes extinct. Evolution is ongoing, it never stops. It might slow down, because the environment doesn't change. But it is still happening

Im bringing the mudskipper into the picture because it spends most of its time on land so it is the best candidate for showing signs of further adaptation to land. Also a fish cant decide to grow skin over its gills just because it wants to. A random mutation has to cause it.

The fact that the mudskipper can even spend time on land is proof of adaptations, but there is no guarantee that the mudskipper is going to follow the same evolutionary path as ancient fish evolving to live on land. In fact, its highly unlikely that even two similar species in similar environments will evolve the same way, there are just too many variables. So there is absolutely no reason to expect the same development to happen. Even if the mudskipper was going to evolve lungs, why would you expect to see any signs of that now? I thought we'd agreed that evolution is so damn slow
What makes you so sure that one day, a mutation caused the gills to be sealed in? What if it was grown over the gills over time, with the gills staying the same size but the size of the gill holes decreasing?

 

[billthegeek]

If the reason for fish leaving the water is to escape predators, then that reason still exists today because fish still have predators. if evolution has not stopped, it also means a mudskipper or any species for that matter has reached the end of its evolutionary path.

Im bringing the mudskipper into the picture because it spends most of its time on land so it is the best candidate for showing signs of further adaptation to land. Also a fish cant decide to grow skin over its gills just because it wants to. A random mutation has to cause it.

Good question! There are several factors which gave fishes powerful incentives to leave water. But some of these factors no longer exists today, which is why you don't see newly evolved fishes that breathe air crawling out of the sea, like mudskippers.

One reason why fishes evolved to breathe air is because the oxygen content in the Devonian and Carboniferous periods were as high as 35%. This allowed land creatures to grow very quickly.

Another reason is because the continents were fusing into a single land mass known as Pangaea. This meant that the coast line is now shorter and hence, lesser coastal habitat. So there was fierce competition in the sea.