This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In order to be encyclopedic, this needs to be split into subpages, within 32kb limit. i.e. although horse evolution is good it needs to be detailed in the example rather than here. I also think we need to look at evidence for evolution vs evidence for (evolution by) natural selection. Dunc| ☺ 15:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added sections on the appearance of resistence to antibiotics, DDT and myxomatosis, which are all evidence of evolution. John D. Croft 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
this article needs headings to refer to the types and fields of evidence for evolution, each with elaborations and examples:
-fossil record (obviously) with examples of observed continuous evolution progressions (e.g. graptolites)
-morphological similarities (linking organisms into kingdoms, phyla, classes->species, subspecies etc. and examples of closely allied species in adjacent habitats as evidence for speciation)
-vestigial structures (the whale sequence as a good example - more than one example better)
-genetics/molecular evidence (as backing up morphological similarities, and also adding timescales to speciation and common ancestry)
any more headings?
i dont think there should be any creationism cr*p here. its an article about "evidence for evolution" not "evidence against evolution"
Cut from article: (there is too much opinion and not enough fact in this article)
Doesn't this sidestep a dispute? Not everyone who regards fossils as authentic, agrees that they provide direct evidence of evolution. Some writers argue that their are so many gaps in the fossil record that this provides a disproof of evolution.
By the way, we need to be clear about which of the several definitions of evolution we're talking about. I think in this context it's
which could be any of the various ideas such as random mutations from cosmic rays, etc.
The main objection to the materialistic theory outlined above is irreducible complexity which asserts that a significant number of inter-species changes are impossible to explain by accumulation of small changes alone. Uncle Ed 19:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think this article needs to document evidence of speciation, both observed in nature and reproduced in a lab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.63.231.224 ( talk • contribs) October 17, 2005.
After reading over this article I was dismayed to see this paragraph, especially the first sentence. Hardly any is is not an adequate description of the evidence.
However, in reality, hardly any fossils that were intermediate forms between related groups of species could be found. The lack of continuous fossils records is the major limitation in evidence for the existence of such intermediate forms of organisms. These gaps in the fossil records are called the missing links.
I have added a most informative link at the bottom of the page which gives a host of transitional fossil examples, and explains a lot of the misconceptions surrounding this topic.
I think this section should be edited, but I don't want to step on anybodies toes so I shall wait for now.
Cheers-- Hugin&Munin 18:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone removed my edit, which was put in with the hope of creating a 'neutral POV' article.
Please remember that Evolution is a theory. So what is wrong with stating (perhaps in a more appropriate way) that evolution is not a proven theory.
I admit that it is accepted as such by educational systems, and certainly there's enough scientists with faith enough to call it true without the proof (or disproof) that science is all about.
but while it remains unproven an encyclopedia should form no bias but present the facts. And so, a perfectly valid reason for having an incomplete fossil record is that none exists.
I may sound like a anti-evolutionist with an agenda just because this argument is not a comfortable one. but there is plenty of precedence for "science" getting it wrong. Consider the controversy when most scientists thought it heresy to say:
I don't even need to go into the 4 elements stuff.. or the crazy medicinal practises. Balzi 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (sorry didn't know how to sign)
I'm not sure that penguins' wings should be given as an example of vestigial organs, because don't they sometimes use their wings to guide themselves while swimming, meaning that their wings are not altogether non-functional? Penguin wings might be a better example of exaptation than of vestigial organs--that is, their wings are more like a transitional organ between a wing and a fin. Wje 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It states in section 1.2 of the article that "The horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny) based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present (Fig. 3)."
Unfortunately, this horse example is not "one of the best examples of evolutionary history" and it is not based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits."
The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!
The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. You can't evolve from 15 to 19 to 18 ribs!
There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.
Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentina—fully grown at 43 centimetres (17 inches) high—and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger.
I plan to change this article to make it more verifiable. If you object, please add to this discussion.-- EChronicle 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Almost everything above is not wrong and/or misleading. Saying so would require you to verify it. Thanks, EChronicle 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I've missed where it deals with the things that I've brought up. But let me go one by one.
1. How can you go from 15 to 19 to 18 ribs? -- EChronicle 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The points that I brought up hardly even go into biology - that's besides the point. Since A large amount of the above is so wrong, could you go point by point? Thanks, EChronicle 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your response. I've been searching the web on the subject, let me post a number of websites that I've found that have included the following quotes:
Links to the articles:
Sorry that I had to do quotes, but those are reasonable points that you'd have to deal with. I'm also working on the horse article that you linked to...
Thanks, EChronicle 20:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok - I can see why you would discard the Hitching quote, but what about the third one? -- EChronicle 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date.
This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual. What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise.
pictures here [3]
The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.
Now, I am not taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all. As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data. I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.
What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence for evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion. I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.
So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this free encyclopedia as current and relevant as possible. And since our scientific knowledge is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.
thanks
Evidence from palaeontology and Evidence from fossils should not be distinct sections. If subsections for individual transitional forms are going to be done, this could become a very long article. MichaelSH 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Evolutionism is merely a theory. You people understand this right?
"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.
"There is...no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin".-Frank M. Carpenter, Evolutionist
It seems to me that...
"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.
does not even meet the qualifications to receive the grandeur title 'theory'. Let us instead refer to it as a hypothesis.
Since evolution is not science, ( knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; Merrian-Webster ), by the strict definition of the term, we cannot consider it to be fact. To do so it must follow the scientific method of being testable, demonstarable, and observable.
The same is considered of creationism.
One must then form an opinion based on which theory posesses the most demonstatable evidence. To call one idea false and another truth is to believe one or the other as a religion, or have proved ones believed theory empirically correct. So until we can spontaneously produce life from a rock or the Rapture occurs, let us continue to search for the truth, without using faulty findings or beliefs as evidence. To do so IS NOT science. EParadigm 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that evolution happens on a small scale doesn't prove it can on a large scale. That's extrapolating too much. Btw, don't use references from the Bible unless you accept it as a reliable source, in which case you would disprove evolution. 71.161.63.149 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to the previous version because the anonymous user made the article sound unencyclopedic and changed the british spelling to american spelling, which wasnt required. skorpion 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have recently fallen victim to being an anonymous user, I would like to point out to all those claiming American bias that there are eight occurrances of "fossilize" or "fossilization" and two occurrances of "fossilise" or "fossilisation". Perhaps you should consider this and fix it, as I have been told to leave the original spelling. Additionally, perhaps someone would like to re-insert the corrections I made (such as "flor of the mouth") since you apparently insist on reverting anything I do.
The "Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry" section is in a sad state. I just cleaned it up and added a bunch of see-alsos up top. It should be the strongest section in the whole article because genetics, which has given us so many medical advances, is dependent on the idea of selection-based evolution. Nobody, not even the creationists, can geny the clear chemical and biological laboratory evidence for genetics, and the genome implies evolution. We need to make this perfectly clear to all readers of this article.
Almost all of the see-alsos which I put in the front of that section have evidence for evolution mentioned somewhere in their articles -- often quite easily as entire sections. Please pick one, and turn it into a sub-section today:
BenB4 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering why citation is needed for the below quote...
For fossilization to take place, the traces and remains of organisms must be quickly buried so that weathering and decomposition do not occur. Skeletal structures or other hard parts of the organisms are the most commonly occurring form of fossilized remains.[citation needed] There are also some trace "fossils" showing moulds, cast or imprints of some previous organisms.
I would have thought this was well-documented. It was certainly considered obvious by my geology tutor.
Weenerbunny
14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Added three refs on taphonomy. Vsmith 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In the subsection entitled Analogous structures and convergent evolution, eyes are listed as evidence for Convergent Evolution. Yet immediately following there is an excursis explaining that eyes are no longer considered a good example of convergent evolution. Which is it? ndansmith 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Hawthorn fly is touted as evidence of evolution, but this is someone's POV. At a minimum, it needs attribution to a published source. Like
Given phrases like "appears to be appears to be undergoing", "possibly new population", "whether or not the apple feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species", this is proto-science.
Readers are looking for an example of one species evolving into another. If this is it, please provede a ref that says so. -- Uncle Ed 13:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also please consider insertion in Speciation. LossIsNotMore 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution. I cite the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ken 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I think the supposed evolution of the horse is overblown and cites no opposing expert opinion. I cite the following: "Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153" [5] ken 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I think the POV/bias of this article can be shown quite readily in regards to the alleged vestigial organs. I cite the following: "The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.312 [8] ken 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I suggest readers examine this material if they want to know how weak the alleged evidence from comparative embryology is. ken 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Let's end this. Haeckel's drawings were flawed and did not support the conclusions that he wanted to draw from them. Modern embryology does not depend in any degree on his drawings (as this article does not mention Haeckel or his flawed findings). The fact that some biology textbooks use his drawings is wrong and the publisher should be informed of the error. But the main point still stands. This article does not use any of Haeckel's findings, so ken's stubborn insistence on conspiracy and propaganda is unwarranted.-- Roland Deschain 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Editors of this page may be interested in this RfC. JoshuaZ 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
While the article describes various reasons why paleontologists don't have as many fossils as they'd like to have, I think it's important to convey to evolution-skeptics some idea of the extent of the fossil record that we DO have. I often get the impression that many are entirely unaware of this, and think there might be just a handful of disputed "transitional fossils" supporting evolution: whereas there are actually many more of these than there are Bibles in the world! (A pity I couldn't point that out in the article...). I've added a paragraph on the extent of the fossil record: feel free to add any similar material that conveys the magnitude of what's out there. -- Robert Stevens 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The last parapgraph of 'Extent of the Fossil Record' states:
Gould and Eldredge's claims are only that the minimal availability of fossils of transitional forms points to periods of very rapid evolution interrupted by much longer periods of preservation of form; they do not, however, argue against common descent. It is therefore extremely unfortunate that many anti-evolutionists misuse the theory of punctuated equilibrium to bolster their attacks on common ancestry in specific and evolution in general.
This erroneously claims that anti-evolutionists use the theory of punctuated equlibrium as an argument against evolution. In reality, they use the same observations as did Gould, namely the scarcity of transitional fossils. They interpret this differently and, contrary to what this formulation suggests, they reject punctuated equilibrium (or else they wouldn't be anti-evolutionists). The reason that anti-evolutionists often mention puctuated equilibrium is to demonstrate that the lack of transitional fossils is not their own invention, and is acknowledged by many respected evolutionary biologists. Therefore, the article should not say that anti-evolutionists misuse or even use the theory of puctuated equilibrium, they merely use the same observations (this does not mean that their interpretation is correct of course). This is the reason I changed the formulation, which may not be perfect either, but I think it is technically more correct. 88.159.235.33 ( talk) 12:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC) edit: forgot to login, I am in fact Lindert ( talk) 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of archiving the trolling to a subpage. I've kept the bits that did not seem like trolling. Adam Cuerden talk 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe when one does a review of the scientific literature, one can see that non creationist biology failed. I think this should be incorporated in the article. 136.183.146.158 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the articles entitled Superbugs not super after all by Carl Wieland shows that antibiotic resistent bacteria are not good evidence for the macroevolutionary position. Also, the article entitled The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D. shows that antiobiotic resistence is not good evidence for the evolutionary position. I think the information in these articles should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article. 136.183.146.158 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"You still haven't DEMONSTRATED why naturalism is true" - naturalism is scientific, supernaturalism is outside of what science can answer. We can't re-define things as we please. That's not what Wikipedia is for.
Guettarda
00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed? I believe the article entitled Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? by Dr. Jerry Bergman shows that homology is not evidence for the evolutionary position. I think this link should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article since homology is said to be evidence for the macroevolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The discussion pages are meant to discuss differences and not to have one sided discussion pages due to censorship. I believe it is flagrant censorship to try to put all the dissenters to the macroevolutionary position in some "trolling archive" 136.183.146.158 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You know 136, it would be nice of you to log in and sign your posts.-- Filll 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to OP: Please understand that this talk page is made for improving the article, not challenging the validity of macroevolution (which by the way is a completely artificial and false term, but I digress.) If you believe that a part of the article is a breach of NPOV, say so. If, however, you're here to bitch because you disagree with evolution, just go away. 66.91.94.57 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in need for a short 2-3 paragraph summary of all the evidences of evolution, to fix the POV of a strongly creationism-biased article. Can anyone help? Adam Cuerden talk 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some math homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. -- Filll 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Mathematics is not a science, although some mathematicians would disagree. I am just trying to make a point. One can solve any problem in science or technology by just invoking a supernatural intervention at any arbitrary place. And then to insist that this solution that includes the supernatural intervention is unassailable, by definition, is not science. It is not mathematics either. Or many other rational disciplines. I included the math example just to make things clear and illuminate the situation. I could come up with better examples however. Maybe make it a physics calculation.-- Filll 16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this guy qualify under the 3RR rule soon. How about a permanent ban from vandalizing all the pages that he/she/it does. Orangemarlin 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This could do with the example of the eye gene [13]. Also there seems to be no mention of the common genetic code. Shyamal 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
While not as awful as some claim, they are known to be exaggerated, and we're just asking for problems by including them. Can't we use another image? Adam Cuerden talk 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
to the page of User:Superman151.-- Filll 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has multiple important claims that aren't cited, such as:
"Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant." What comparisons?
"Fossil evidence supports the theory that organisms tend to progressively increase in complexity." What evidence?
"Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock." Proof, please!
I think we should add a "this article does not cite its sources" tag.
Gert2 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Gert2 (
talk •
contribs)
02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I can't find any reference in this article to perfect classification -the fact that species can be put into groups within groups with no anomalies at all. For example, a feathered, milk producing bat that laid eggs would not fit neatly into either birds or mammals, but no such creature exists or has ever existed. The only plausible way perfect classification could have happened is by descent from common ancestors. Have I missed it? If not, it should go in. Man with two legs 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, look, all I'm saying is, there's a difference between saying "classification is perfect", and "classification is so damn good there's almost no chance it's wrong, and these little wrinkles will almost definitely be ironed out and not bring the whole thing crashing down." The latter, I would agree with, as it seems would you. But I don't see how you can call that "perfect classification". Graft 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to Evidence of common descent, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion on Evolution of how strange this name of this article sounds (about as strange as an article called, say, Evidence of gravity); its corresponding section in Evolution will probably soon be replaced by something more coherent. The problem is that just about everything in biology can be considered "evidence of evolution", in one way or another; what this article actually mainly concerns itself with is evidence for common descent, so I strongly suggest that this article's title be changed: move it to Evidence for common descent or Evidence of common descent. This will immediately eliminate any ambiguities and make the article much more useful and clear, by not implying that things like fossils are needed to provide support for the very basic and obvious occurrence of evolution, i.e., changes in a population's genetic composition over successive generations—which is different from what this article largely discusses, evolutionary history under common descent. - Silence 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Evidence of common descent is a better name for this article. Evidence for common descent would suggest the need for the article Evidence against common descent. WAS 4.250 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Mutations are changes in genes that already exist. Mutations produce only alleles, which means they can produce only variation within kind, not change from one kind to others. To make evolution happen—or even to make evolution a scientific theory—evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer” to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors” that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all.
Also, mutations are "heading the wrong way" as far as evolutions is concerned. Mutations don’t create; they corrupt. Rather than adding information, mutations destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes). To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned. -- Lossenhilien 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I did. -- Lossenhilien 07:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than adding information, mutations destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).
Mutations are harmful at least 1000 times more often than they are helpful. No evolutionist believes that standing in front of X-ray machines would eventually improve human beings. No evolutionist argues that destruction of the earth’s ozone layer is good because it increases mutation rates and, therefore, speeds up evolution. Evolutionists know that decrease in the ozone layer will increase mutation rates, but they, like everyone else, recognise that this will lead only to increased skin cancer and to other harmful changes. Perhaps a helpful change might occur, but it would be drowned in the sea of harmful changes. To explain evolution by the gradual selection of beneficial mutations, one must also put up with the millions of harmful mutations that would have to occur along the way.
How can you rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information?
-- Lossenhilien 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sickle-cell anemia may have an abstract benefit, but the cost is high: 25% of the children of carriers can die of sickle-cell anemia, and another 25% are subject to malaria. If you want to call that a good mutation, you’re welcome to it! It seems doubtful to me that real improvement of human beings would result from accumulating that kind of “beneficial” mutant, and certainly hemoglobin’s ability to carry oxygen was not improved. Furthermore, when the frequency of the sickle-cell gene reaches 18%, natural selection for it “stops.” That’s the point at which the death rates from sickle-cell anemia and malaria balance, demonstrating conclusively that sickle-cell anemia is not a suitable model for the continuous genetic expansion that evolutionists seek.
Robert Stevens, to me, mathematics poses a serious challenge for you.
Mutations occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.
The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.
What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to even change a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution.
-- Lossenhilien 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been published in Nature [15] and should perhaps be considered. -- Childhood's End 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you ask me, this page and an 'evidence against common descent/evolution/what have you' has absolutely no place on wikipedia.
A page like this is just about as ridiculous as Evidence of gravity or Evidence of a round earth or Evidence of the earth revolving around the sun pages. {brother these pages would be different.Anyways,they don't exist.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceislife ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Evolution is, at this point, pretty much a scientific fact in countries where people do not have, pardon my language, their heads up their collectively religious asses.
Just as the above ridiculous pages would have only the single lines 'When you drop stuff that isn't lighter than air, it generally falls', 'when you start moving into a single direction that isn't up, you generally end up in pretty much the same spot' and 'when you observe the solar system from outside the atmosphere, you can generally see the earth shifting position relative to the sun' respectively, so should this page have only the single line 'when you compare fossil records of millions and billions of years ago to the species that exist now, you can generally see that species from that time are different from species of this time, but they have traits in common that strongly suggest that species today descended from species then.'
Creating a whole page to support Evolution is just a way of catering to the Creationists, by suggesting that Evolution NEEDS a list of proof for it to be taken seriously. Robrecht 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is good to have pages like this, and even would be good to have pages or sections of articles on the topics you suggested were "ridiculous". -- Filll 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the move from Evidence of evolution to Evidence of common descent. However there is now a huge problem: While all evidence of common descent is evidence of evolution, not all evidence of evolution is direct evidence of common descent. There are now several sections in this article that are not completely accurately described by its title; in fact, most of it isn't.
While all evidence of evolution can be used as indirect evidence of common descent, very little of it apart from molecular biochemistry serves as direct evidence.
Can this problem can be corrected by splitting the two articles, and putting everything not directly supporting common descent under the old article's title? Of course the distinction should be made clear with ample cross-linking in the lead sections of both, if that were to happen. 1of3 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Assuming fossils are real (and not placed by a "trickster god"), then they show definitively that various forms of life have appeared over millions of years.
Is this record of progressive appearance to be considered evidence which support the theory of common descent? If so, which scientists think this way? And who (within the scientific community or outside of it) disagree? -- Uncle Ed 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
this section is a little weak. the anti-evolution argument seems to be that though antibiotics select resistant bacteria, those resistant bacteria have always been there in small numbers, rather than them emerging due to the mutation/selection process. it would be nice to see evidence to the contrary. does anyone have any? -- Mongreilf ( talk) 11:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone actulaly show some pictures of missing links. Otherwise its a rather weak section. I'm not trying to cause a fire-fight, just making a suggestion. Saksjn ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Which one? Saksjn ( talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the term "missing links" was poorly used. I'll settle with "links." Saksjn ( talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Found the picture... how is this a link? All it is, is a reptilian mammal. It in know way documents a change from one species to another. The picture isn't even a fossil... anyone can draw a picture. Please give a real fossil pic. Saksjn ( talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn, what happens is that creationists claim there is no transitional fossil between species 1 and 2. When transitional fossil 1.5 between 1 and 2 appears, then the creationists claim there is no transitional fossil between 1 and 1.5 and 1.5 and 2. When transitional fossils 1.25 and 1.75 appear, now the creationists claim that four transitional fossils are missing: a transitional fossil between 1 and 1.25, another between 1.25 and 1.5, another between 1.5 and 1.75 and another between 1.75 and 2. Clearly, the more transitional fossils that are found, the more transitional fossils creationists claim are missing, so this is a losing battle. Duane Gish in particular has been good at playing this game. It is literally impossible to find all the transitional fossils or "missing links". It will never ever be done.-- Filll ( talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a 4+ links in a chain, just asking to see a pic of a fossilized specie between two species. All the article has now is two images that are unrelated to each other. In fact, one of them isn't even a fossil, it's just a painting. Thanks for the transitional fossil tidbit, I'm now a little more educated. Saksjn ( talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't we use pictures of both fossils and illustrations? Saksjn ( talk) 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting for a response. Saksjn ( talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Or is it simply because there is not enough relevant evidence? Saksjn ( talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is still an issue, maybe someone could post the picture form the Darwinius page. Ninahexan ( talk) 09:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Since others have noted the lack, I drafted a section on "evidence from genetics", which is here. I would greatly appreciate if others could help whip it into shape - obviously it needs references; it could also use a nice figure of a some phylogenetic tree reconstructions. And the final bit about Hox gene evolution, with which I am embarassingly unfamiliar, definitely needs some attention. Graft | talk 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yo,
I'd like to include a figure similar to (maybe identical to) Fig. 1 from this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/290/5493/972 However, that one is copyrighted by Science, and I'm assuming we can't just replicate it in Inkscape and still be legit. Can anyone suggest some good options? Graft | talk 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that ERVs aren't mentioned here. Why is that? 67.233.131.253 ( talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Questions:
For example, any bacteriums? Or, does the nature need only developed creatures? For example, the animals? Must be all bacteriums in the length of time any developed creatures? Have the bacteriums in nature for them any works to do? Can any developed creatures work the same job? Are the bacteriums an evidence of evolutions, because these are simple creatures? Are their job simple for nature?-- 78.177.173.0 ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I intend to put an NPOV tag on this article. It is an essay that starts with the thesis The wide range of evidence of common descent of living things strongly indicates the occurrence of evolution and then tries to prove it. If it was NPOV, it would just state the facts and let you figure things out for yourself. -- Ezra Wax ( talk) 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is correct that this article does not have an inline citation at the end of every sentence, but not every article needs 144 citations. The references section and EL are fairly extensive. This article is not inaccurate nor poorly written, in fact is explains the evidence very well. If those who disagree want to they are free to add cites to back up any paragraph they want, or to add cite tags to any points they feel are not well explained or need further evidence. As for problems with the title is is called "evidence for" not "case for", and as there is volumes of such evidence then the title is correct. Creationism is not a scientific subject and this article is all about the scientific methods underpinning evolution, creationism or any of its tenets have no place in this article. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In order to be encyclopedic, this needs to be split into subpages, within 32kb limit. i.e. although horse evolution is good it needs to be detailed in the example rather than here. I also think we need to look at evidence for evolution vs evidence for (evolution by) natural selection. Dunc| ☺ 15:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added sections on the appearance of resistence to antibiotics, DDT and myxomatosis, which are all evidence of evolution. John D. Croft 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
this article needs headings to refer to the types and fields of evidence for evolution, each with elaborations and examples:
-fossil record (obviously) with examples of observed continuous evolution progressions (e.g. graptolites)
-morphological similarities (linking organisms into kingdoms, phyla, classes->species, subspecies etc. and examples of closely allied species in adjacent habitats as evidence for speciation)
-vestigial structures (the whale sequence as a good example - more than one example better)
-genetics/molecular evidence (as backing up morphological similarities, and also adding timescales to speciation and common ancestry)
any more headings?
i dont think there should be any creationism cr*p here. its an article about "evidence for evolution" not "evidence against evolution"
Cut from article: (there is too much opinion and not enough fact in this article)
Doesn't this sidestep a dispute? Not everyone who regards fossils as authentic, agrees that they provide direct evidence of evolution. Some writers argue that their are so many gaps in the fossil record that this provides a disproof of evolution.
By the way, we need to be clear about which of the several definitions of evolution we're talking about. I think in this context it's
which could be any of the various ideas such as random mutations from cosmic rays, etc.
The main objection to the materialistic theory outlined above is irreducible complexity which asserts that a significant number of inter-species changes are impossible to explain by accumulation of small changes alone. Uncle Ed 19:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think this article needs to document evidence of speciation, both observed in nature and reproduced in a lab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.63.231.224 ( talk • contribs) October 17, 2005.
After reading over this article I was dismayed to see this paragraph, especially the first sentence. Hardly any is is not an adequate description of the evidence.
However, in reality, hardly any fossils that were intermediate forms between related groups of species could be found. The lack of continuous fossils records is the major limitation in evidence for the existence of such intermediate forms of organisms. These gaps in the fossil records are called the missing links.
I have added a most informative link at the bottom of the page which gives a host of transitional fossil examples, and explains a lot of the misconceptions surrounding this topic.
I think this section should be edited, but I don't want to step on anybodies toes so I shall wait for now.
Cheers-- Hugin&Munin 18:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone removed my edit, which was put in with the hope of creating a 'neutral POV' article.
Please remember that Evolution is a theory. So what is wrong with stating (perhaps in a more appropriate way) that evolution is not a proven theory.
I admit that it is accepted as such by educational systems, and certainly there's enough scientists with faith enough to call it true without the proof (or disproof) that science is all about.
but while it remains unproven an encyclopedia should form no bias but present the facts. And so, a perfectly valid reason for having an incomplete fossil record is that none exists.
I may sound like a anti-evolutionist with an agenda just because this argument is not a comfortable one. but there is plenty of precedence for "science" getting it wrong. Consider the controversy when most scientists thought it heresy to say:
I don't even need to go into the 4 elements stuff.. or the crazy medicinal practises. Balzi 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (sorry didn't know how to sign)
I'm not sure that penguins' wings should be given as an example of vestigial organs, because don't they sometimes use their wings to guide themselves while swimming, meaning that their wings are not altogether non-functional? Penguin wings might be a better example of exaptation than of vestigial organs--that is, their wings are more like a transitional organ between a wing and a fin. Wje 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It states in section 1.2 of the article that "The horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny) based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present (Fig. 3)."
Unfortunately, this horse example is not "one of the best examples of evolutionary history" and it is not based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits."
The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!
The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. You can't evolve from 15 to 19 to 18 ribs!
There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.
Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentina—fully grown at 43 centimetres (17 inches) high—and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger.
I plan to change this article to make it more verifiable. If you object, please add to this discussion.-- EChronicle 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Almost everything above is not wrong and/or misleading. Saying so would require you to verify it. Thanks, EChronicle 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I've missed where it deals with the things that I've brought up. But let me go one by one.
1. How can you go from 15 to 19 to 18 ribs? -- EChronicle 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The points that I brought up hardly even go into biology - that's besides the point. Since A large amount of the above is so wrong, could you go point by point? Thanks, EChronicle 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your response. I've been searching the web on the subject, let me post a number of websites that I've found that have included the following quotes:
Links to the articles:
Sorry that I had to do quotes, but those are reasonable points that you'd have to deal with. I'm also working on the horse article that you linked to...
Thanks, EChronicle 20:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok - I can see why you would discard the Hitching quote, but what about the third one? -- EChronicle 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date.
This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual. What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise.
pictures here [3]
The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.
Now, I am not taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all. As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data. I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.
What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence for evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion. I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.
So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this free encyclopedia as current and relevant as possible. And since our scientific knowledge is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.
thanks
Evidence from palaeontology and Evidence from fossils should not be distinct sections. If subsections for individual transitional forms are going to be done, this could become a very long article. MichaelSH 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Evolutionism is merely a theory. You people understand this right?
"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.
"There is...no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin".-Frank M. Carpenter, Evolutionist
It seems to me that...
"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.
does not even meet the qualifications to receive the grandeur title 'theory'. Let us instead refer to it as a hypothesis.
Since evolution is not science, ( knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; Merrian-Webster ), by the strict definition of the term, we cannot consider it to be fact. To do so it must follow the scientific method of being testable, demonstarable, and observable.
The same is considered of creationism.
One must then form an opinion based on which theory posesses the most demonstatable evidence. To call one idea false and another truth is to believe one or the other as a religion, or have proved ones believed theory empirically correct. So until we can spontaneously produce life from a rock or the Rapture occurs, let us continue to search for the truth, without using faulty findings or beliefs as evidence. To do so IS NOT science. EParadigm 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that evolution happens on a small scale doesn't prove it can on a large scale. That's extrapolating too much. Btw, don't use references from the Bible unless you accept it as a reliable source, in which case you would disprove evolution. 71.161.63.149 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to the previous version because the anonymous user made the article sound unencyclopedic and changed the british spelling to american spelling, which wasnt required. skorpion 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have recently fallen victim to being an anonymous user, I would like to point out to all those claiming American bias that there are eight occurrances of "fossilize" or "fossilization" and two occurrances of "fossilise" or "fossilisation". Perhaps you should consider this and fix it, as I have been told to leave the original spelling. Additionally, perhaps someone would like to re-insert the corrections I made (such as "flor of the mouth") since you apparently insist on reverting anything I do.
The "Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry" section is in a sad state. I just cleaned it up and added a bunch of see-alsos up top. It should be the strongest section in the whole article because genetics, which has given us so many medical advances, is dependent on the idea of selection-based evolution. Nobody, not even the creationists, can geny the clear chemical and biological laboratory evidence for genetics, and the genome implies evolution. We need to make this perfectly clear to all readers of this article.
Almost all of the see-alsos which I put in the front of that section have evidence for evolution mentioned somewhere in their articles -- often quite easily as entire sections. Please pick one, and turn it into a sub-section today:
BenB4 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering why citation is needed for the below quote...
For fossilization to take place, the traces and remains of organisms must be quickly buried so that weathering and decomposition do not occur. Skeletal structures or other hard parts of the organisms are the most commonly occurring form of fossilized remains.[citation needed] There are also some trace "fossils" showing moulds, cast or imprints of some previous organisms.
I would have thought this was well-documented. It was certainly considered obvious by my geology tutor.
Weenerbunny
14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Added three refs on taphonomy. Vsmith 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In the subsection entitled Analogous structures and convergent evolution, eyes are listed as evidence for Convergent Evolution. Yet immediately following there is an excursis explaining that eyes are no longer considered a good example of convergent evolution. Which is it? ndansmith 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Hawthorn fly is touted as evidence of evolution, but this is someone's POV. At a minimum, it needs attribution to a published source. Like
Given phrases like "appears to be appears to be undergoing", "possibly new population", "whether or not the apple feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species", this is proto-science.
Readers are looking for an example of one species evolving into another. If this is it, please provede a ref that says so. -- Uncle Ed 13:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also please consider insertion in Speciation. LossIsNotMore 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution. I cite the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ken 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I think the supposed evolution of the horse is overblown and cites no opposing expert opinion. I cite the following: "Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153" [5] ken 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I think the POV/bias of this article can be shown quite readily in regards to the alleged vestigial organs. I cite the following: "The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.312 [8] ken 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I suggest readers examine this material if they want to know how weak the alleged evidence from comparative embryology is. ken 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Let's end this. Haeckel's drawings were flawed and did not support the conclusions that he wanted to draw from them. Modern embryology does not depend in any degree on his drawings (as this article does not mention Haeckel or his flawed findings). The fact that some biology textbooks use his drawings is wrong and the publisher should be informed of the error. But the main point still stands. This article does not use any of Haeckel's findings, so ken's stubborn insistence on conspiracy and propaganda is unwarranted.-- Roland Deschain 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Editors of this page may be interested in this RfC. JoshuaZ 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
While the article describes various reasons why paleontologists don't have as many fossils as they'd like to have, I think it's important to convey to evolution-skeptics some idea of the extent of the fossil record that we DO have. I often get the impression that many are entirely unaware of this, and think there might be just a handful of disputed "transitional fossils" supporting evolution: whereas there are actually many more of these than there are Bibles in the world! (A pity I couldn't point that out in the article...). I've added a paragraph on the extent of the fossil record: feel free to add any similar material that conveys the magnitude of what's out there. -- Robert Stevens 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The last parapgraph of 'Extent of the Fossil Record' states:
Gould and Eldredge's claims are only that the minimal availability of fossils of transitional forms points to periods of very rapid evolution interrupted by much longer periods of preservation of form; they do not, however, argue against common descent. It is therefore extremely unfortunate that many anti-evolutionists misuse the theory of punctuated equilibrium to bolster their attacks on common ancestry in specific and evolution in general.
This erroneously claims that anti-evolutionists use the theory of punctuated equlibrium as an argument against evolution. In reality, they use the same observations as did Gould, namely the scarcity of transitional fossils. They interpret this differently and, contrary to what this formulation suggests, they reject punctuated equilibrium (or else they wouldn't be anti-evolutionists). The reason that anti-evolutionists often mention puctuated equilibrium is to demonstrate that the lack of transitional fossils is not their own invention, and is acknowledged by many respected evolutionary biologists. Therefore, the article should not say that anti-evolutionists misuse or even use the theory of puctuated equilibrium, they merely use the same observations (this does not mean that their interpretation is correct of course). This is the reason I changed the formulation, which may not be perfect either, but I think it is technically more correct. 88.159.235.33 ( talk) 12:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC) edit: forgot to login, I am in fact Lindert ( talk) 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of archiving the trolling to a subpage. I've kept the bits that did not seem like trolling. Adam Cuerden talk 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe when one does a review of the scientific literature, one can see that non creationist biology failed. I think this should be incorporated in the article. 136.183.146.158 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the articles entitled Superbugs not super after all by Carl Wieland shows that antibiotic resistent bacteria are not good evidence for the macroevolutionary position. Also, the article entitled The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D. shows that antiobiotic resistence is not good evidence for the evolutionary position. I think the information in these articles should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article. 136.183.146.158 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"You still haven't DEMONSTRATED why naturalism is true" - naturalism is scientific, supernaturalism is outside of what science can answer. We can't re-define things as we please. That's not what Wikipedia is for.
Guettarda
00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed? I believe the article entitled Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? by Dr. Jerry Bergman shows that homology is not evidence for the evolutionary position. I think this link should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article since homology is said to be evidence for the macroevolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The discussion pages are meant to discuss differences and not to have one sided discussion pages due to censorship. I believe it is flagrant censorship to try to put all the dissenters to the macroevolutionary position in some "trolling archive" 136.183.146.158 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You know 136, it would be nice of you to log in and sign your posts.-- Filll 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to OP: Please understand that this talk page is made for improving the article, not challenging the validity of macroevolution (which by the way is a completely artificial and false term, but I digress.) If you believe that a part of the article is a breach of NPOV, say so. If, however, you're here to bitch because you disagree with evolution, just go away. 66.91.94.57 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in need for a short 2-3 paragraph summary of all the evidences of evolution, to fix the POV of a strongly creationism-biased article. Can anyone help? Adam Cuerden talk 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some math homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. -- Filll 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Mathematics is not a science, although some mathematicians would disagree. I am just trying to make a point. One can solve any problem in science or technology by just invoking a supernatural intervention at any arbitrary place. And then to insist that this solution that includes the supernatural intervention is unassailable, by definition, is not science. It is not mathematics either. Or many other rational disciplines. I included the math example just to make things clear and illuminate the situation. I could come up with better examples however. Maybe make it a physics calculation.-- Filll 16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this guy qualify under the 3RR rule soon. How about a permanent ban from vandalizing all the pages that he/she/it does. Orangemarlin 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This could do with the example of the eye gene [13]. Also there seems to be no mention of the common genetic code. Shyamal 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
While not as awful as some claim, they are known to be exaggerated, and we're just asking for problems by including them. Can't we use another image? Adam Cuerden talk 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
to the page of User:Superman151.-- Filll 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has multiple important claims that aren't cited, such as:
"Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant." What comparisons?
"Fossil evidence supports the theory that organisms tend to progressively increase in complexity." What evidence?
"Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock." Proof, please!
I think we should add a "this article does not cite its sources" tag.
Gert2 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Gert2 (
talk •
contribs)
02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I can't find any reference in this article to perfect classification -the fact that species can be put into groups within groups with no anomalies at all. For example, a feathered, milk producing bat that laid eggs would not fit neatly into either birds or mammals, but no such creature exists or has ever existed. The only plausible way perfect classification could have happened is by descent from common ancestors. Have I missed it? If not, it should go in. Man with two legs 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, look, all I'm saying is, there's a difference between saying "classification is perfect", and "classification is so damn good there's almost no chance it's wrong, and these little wrinkles will almost definitely be ironed out and not bring the whole thing crashing down." The latter, I would agree with, as it seems would you. But I don't see how you can call that "perfect classification". Graft 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move to Evidence of common descent, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion on Evolution of how strange this name of this article sounds (about as strange as an article called, say, Evidence of gravity); its corresponding section in Evolution will probably soon be replaced by something more coherent. The problem is that just about everything in biology can be considered "evidence of evolution", in one way or another; what this article actually mainly concerns itself with is evidence for common descent, so I strongly suggest that this article's title be changed: move it to Evidence for common descent or Evidence of common descent. This will immediately eliminate any ambiguities and make the article much more useful and clear, by not implying that things like fossils are needed to provide support for the very basic and obvious occurrence of evolution, i.e., changes in a population's genetic composition over successive generations—which is different from what this article largely discusses, evolutionary history under common descent. - Silence 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Evidence of common descent is a better name for this article. Evidence for common descent would suggest the need for the article Evidence against common descent. WAS 4.250 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Mutations are changes in genes that already exist. Mutations produce only alleles, which means they can produce only variation within kind, not change from one kind to others. To make evolution happen—or even to make evolution a scientific theory—evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer” to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors” that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all.
Also, mutations are "heading the wrong way" as far as evolutions is concerned. Mutations don’t create; they corrupt. Rather than adding information, mutations destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes). To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned. -- Lossenhilien 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I did. -- Lossenhilien 07:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than adding information, mutations destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).
Mutations are harmful at least 1000 times more often than they are helpful. No evolutionist believes that standing in front of X-ray machines would eventually improve human beings. No evolutionist argues that destruction of the earth’s ozone layer is good because it increases mutation rates and, therefore, speeds up evolution. Evolutionists know that decrease in the ozone layer will increase mutation rates, but they, like everyone else, recognise that this will lead only to increased skin cancer and to other harmful changes. Perhaps a helpful change might occur, but it would be drowned in the sea of harmful changes. To explain evolution by the gradual selection of beneficial mutations, one must also put up with the millions of harmful mutations that would have to occur along the way.
How can you rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information?
-- Lossenhilien 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sickle-cell anemia may have an abstract benefit, but the cost is high: 25% of the children of carriers can die of sickle-cell anemia, and another 25% are subject to malaria. If you want to call that a good mutation, you’re welcome to it! It seems doubtful to me that real improvement of human beings would result from accumulating that kind of “beneficial” mutant, and certainly hemoglobin’s ability to carry oxygen was not improved. Furthermore, when the frequency of the sickle-cell gene reaches 18%, natural selection for it “stops.” That’s the point at which the death rates from sickle-cell anemia and malaria balance, demonstrating conclusively that sickle-cell anemia is not a suitable model for the continuous genetic expansion that evolutionists seek.
Robert Stevens, to me, mathematics poses a serious challenge for you.
Mutations occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.
The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.
What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to even change a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution.
-- Lossenhilien 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been published in Nature [15] and should perhaps be considered. -- Childhood's End 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you ask me, this page and an 'evidence against common descent/evolution/what have you' has absolutely no place on wikipedia.
A page like this is just about as ridiculous as Evidence of gravity or Evidence of a round earth or Evidence of the earth revolving around the sun pages. {brother these pages would be different.Anyways,they don't exist.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceislife ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Evolution is, at this point, pretty much a scientific fact in countries where people do not have, pardon my language, their heads up their collectively religious asses.
Just as the above ridiculous pages would have only the single lines 'When you drop stuff that isn't lighter than air, it generally falls', 'when you start moving into a single direction that isn't up, you generally end up in pretty much the same spot' and 'when you observe the solar system from outside the atmosphere, you can generally see the earth shifting position relative to the sun' respectively, so should this page have only the single line 'when you compare fossil records of millions and billions of years ago to the species that exist now, you can generally see that species from that time are different from species of this time, but they have traits in common that strongly suggest that species today descended from species then.'
Creating a whole page to support Evolution is just a way of catering to the Creationists, by suggesting that Evolution NEEDS a list of proof for it to be taken seriously. Robrecht 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is good to have pages like this, and even would be good to have pages or sections of articles on the topics you suggested were "ridiculous". -- Filll 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the move from Evidence of evolution to Evidence of common descent. However there is now a huge problem: While all evidence of common descent is evidence of evolution, not all evidence of evolution is direct evidence of common descent. There are now several sections in this article that are not completely accurately described by its title; in fact, most of it isn't.
While all evidence of evolution can be used as indirect evidence of common descent, very little of it apart from molecular biochemistry serves as direct evidence.
Can this problem can be corrected by splitting the two articles, and putting everything not directly supporting common descent under the old article's title? Of course the distinction should be made clear with ample cross-linking in the lead sections of both, if that were to happen. 1of3 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Assuming fossils are real (and not placed by a "trickster god"), then they show definitively that various forms of life have appeared over millions of years.
Is this record of progressive appearance to be considered evidence which support the theory of common descent? If so, which scientists think this way? And who (within the scientific community or outside of it) disagree? -- Uncle Ed 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
this section is a little weak. the anti-evolution argument seems to be that though antibiotics select resistant bacteria, those resistant bacteria have always been there in small numbers, rather than them emerging due to the mutation/selection process. it would be nice to see evidence to the contrary. does anyone have any? -- Mongreilf ( talk) 11:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone actulaly show some pictures of missing links. Otherwise its a rather weak section. I'm not trying to cause a fire-fight, just making a suggestion. Saksjn ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Which one? Saksjn ( talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the term "missing links" was poorly used. I'll settle with "links." Saksjn ( talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Found the picture... how is this a link? All it is, is a reptilian mammal. It in know way documents a change from one species to another. The picture isn't even a fossil... anyone can draw a picture. Please give a real fossil pic. Saksjn ( talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn, what happens is that creationists claim there is no transitional fossil between species 1 and 2. When transitional fossil 1.5 between 1 and 2 appears, then the creationists claim there is no transitional fossil between 1 and 1.5 and 1.5 and 2. When transitional fossils 1.25 and 1.75 appear, now the creationists claim that four transitional fossils are missing: a transitional fossil between 1 and 1.25, another between 1.25 and 1.5, another between 1.5 and 1.75 and another between 1.75 and 2. Clearly, the more transitional fossils that are found, the more transitional fossils creationists claim are missing, so this is a losing battle. Duane Gish in particular has been good at playing this game. It is literally impossible to find all the transitional fossils or "missing links". It will never ever be done.-- Filll ( talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a 4+ links in a chain, just asking to see a pic of a fossilized specie between two species. All the article has now is two images that are unrelated to each other. In fact, one of them isn't even a fossil, it's just a painting. Thanks for the transitional fossil tidbit, I'm now a little more educated. Saksjn ( talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't we use pictures of both fossils and illustrations? Saksjn ( talk) 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting for a response. Saksjn ( talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Or is it simply because there is not enough relevant evidence? Saksjn ( talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is still an issue, maybe someone could post the picture form the Darwinius page. Ninahexan ( talk) 09:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Since others have noted the lack, I drafted a section on "evidence from genetics", which is here. I would greatly appreciate if others could help whip it into shape - obviously it needs references; it could also use a nice figure of a some phylogenetic tree reconstructions. And the final bit about Hox gene evolution, with which I am embarassingly unfamiliar, definitely needs some attention. Graft | talk 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yo,
I'd like to include a figure similar to (maybe identical to) Fig. 1 from this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/290/5493/972 However, that one is copyrighted by Science, and I'm assuming we can't just replicate it in Inkscape and still be legit. Can anyone suggest some good options? Graft | talk 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that ERVs aren't mentioned here. Why is that? 67.233.131.253 ( talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Questions:
For example, any bacteriums? Or, does the nature need only developed creatures? For example, the animals? Must be all bacteriums in the length of time any developed creatures? Have the bacteriums in nature for them any works to do? Can any developed creatures work the same job? Are the bacteriums an evidence of evolutions, because these are simple creatures? Are their job simple for nature?-- 78.177.173.0 ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I intend to put an NPOV tag on this article. It is an essay that starts with the thesis The wide range of evidence of common descent of living things strongly indicates the occurrence of evolution and then tries to prove it. If it was NPOV, it would just state the facts and let you figure things out for yourself. -- Ezra Wax ( talk) 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is correct that this article does not have an inline citation at the end of every sentence, but not every article needs 144 citations. The references section and EL are fairly extensive. This article is not inaccurate nor poorly written, in fact is explains the evidence very well. If those who disagree want to they are free to add cites to back up any paragraph they want, or to add cite tags to any points they feel are not well explained or need further evidence. As for problems with the title is is called "evidence for" not "case for", and as there is volumes of such evidence then the title is correct. Creationism is not a scientific subject and this article is all about the scientific methods underpinning evolution, creationism or any of its tenets have no place in this article. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)