What are the evidences for evolution?

Question

Please, serious answers only. I really want to know what people think the best arguments are. I keep hearing about the "proofs" of evolution, but what are they? Lists of books are great as well...

I am reading Origin of Species right now. I think it's very good, but he doesn't give any evidence that could stand up with todays knowledge...

Answer 1

Science is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not. What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

1. Vestigial structures

One example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.

Another example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.

2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.

Creationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution. This is true. However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.

3. The fossil record.

Although the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species. There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).

I want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).

There are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).

5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.

Creationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument. Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin. It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.

Any developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photographs of actual embryos taken by respectable scientists, NOT on Haeckel's drawings.

I find it rather funny that creationists try to argue that because one scientist was a fraud we should disregard all of developmental biology.

6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.

The main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.

Genetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?

Also, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.

7. Homologous structures.

Homologous structures are structures that typically have similar morphological features and, often, similar functions, and are the result of evolutionary change of a single structure present in the most recent common ancestor of the two species. A homoplastic structure is one that may have a similar function and superficial appearance to another structure but is the result of convergent evolution (i.e. it was not present in the most recent common ancestry).

The most obvious examples of homoplastic structures are things like a human's hand and a gorilla's hand. A more subtle example is the human hand and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve different functions, their bone structures are nearly identical. This is because the bat wing is a modified mammalian forelimb. In other word, the most recent common ancestor of the human and the bat was a mammal that had a forelimb with a bone structure similar to that of the modern human hand and other mammalian forelimbs. In humans this forelimb became the hand. In bats it became the wing.

An interesting example of homoplastic structures is the bird wing and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve similar functions (i.e. flying), they are anatomically quite different. They have quite different bone structures and operate according to different mechanical mechanisms. In fact, the bat wing is structurally more similar to human hand than the bird wing. Incidentally, the bird and bat wings are homoplastic as wings but homologous as forelimbs.

That is just one example. The animal kingdom is littered with examples of structures that serve different functions but have extremely similar morphological traits, and structures that serve similar functions but show clear evidence of distinct evolutionary origin.

8. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.

The point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.

9. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).

These are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.

There are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."


For more information, see the following links:
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml
http://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Or just do a google search for something like “evidence of evolution,” or check your local library.

Answer 2

Darwin's book is great, but don't forget it was written before there was any knowledge of genetics.

Obviously, there is a HUGE amount of material I could suggest to you. However, since you're on line, here are a couple of really good places to start with.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.html

You might also enjoy:

Weiner, Jonathan, 1994, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Knopf

Dawkins, Richard, 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company.

Dawkins, Richard, 1989, The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.), Oxford Univ. Press.

Dawkins, Richard, 1995, River Out of Eden, Basic Books

These are just the literal tip of an iceberg of knowledge which has been accumulating for about the last 140 years now.

Enjoy

Answer 3

It really depends on what aspect of Evolution you are talking about.

One part of evolution theory is man sharing ancestry with apes...evidence is shaky and shrouded in 'scandal'

Another part is about adaptations within a given species...evidence is solid.

Another: one species can evolve into another over enough time-not a very commonly held belief...but then that kind of goes against man evolving from apes...an inconsistency in the evolution theory (of which there are many)

Another part of evolution is how old the earth is...the scientific evidence is unreliable

These are just a few points of a very complicated thing...

You can check out this website for refutations of evolution from reputable scientists. This, along with other website recommendations will give you a good mix and balance of the topic.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Answer 4

Fossil evidence that demonstrates a pattern in development over usually long periods of time. Also, Darwin demonstrated in the Galapagos Islands that certain birds (finches, I think) made definite adaptations to a changing environment in a relatively short amount of time.

A common misconception is that "people came from monkeys." Darwin never said that. He suggested that humans and other primates have common ancestors. You have to admit, people are pretty monkey-like.

Regarding books, why not read Darwin's "The Origin of Species"?

Answer 5

that is because there are no proofs for evolution, only deception based on other deceptions, here is some basic common sense:

I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

Answer 6

The recent development of an enzyme in Japanes bacteria that allows the organisms to use Nylon as nutrition (a man made material).

Vestigal organs such as the reduced hind legs in modern whales.

Biostratigraphy.

The fossil record particularly the evolution of the inner ear in mammals from the lower jaw of the synapsids and theraspids. The dino-bird relationship.

Answer 7

evolution exists. like horses used to have 5 toes or something then they evolved to only having 1 big toe or hoof. this is because survival of the fittest or natural selection. 1 hoof horses r just more fit for runnin. 5 toers r too slow and die. evolution is just natural selection and survivial of the fittest i believe. such as all the neatherthals have died because they're too stupid. smaller brain cage than humans homo sapiens!

Answer 8

Continental Drifts and Fossils

Answer 9

Fossil evidence
Embryological evidence
Anatomical evidence
Cytological evidence
Geographical evidence

Answer 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evidence_of_evolution

Answer 11

There are all kinds of evidence for evolution. Almost every living species, every fossil, and even the distribution of those organisms chronologically and geographically around the globe all present evidence for evolution.

Evidence for Homo sapiens sapiens evolution from apes: Genetic similarities between Homo sapiens sapiens and the living great apes (chimpanzees, gorilla) (Greater than 90% identical in sequence of genomes); Skeletal structure of Homo sapiens sapiens and living great apes is virtually identical except for proportions; Tooth morphology is remarkably similar, including sharing a Y-5 cusp pattern on the molars that is only found in the great apes; Fossil species (Australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus etc.) that are transitional in morphology and chronology between the great apes and Homo sapiens sapiens; Geographic distribution of all transitional fossils in Africa; Highest degree of genetic variation within Homo sapiens sapiens found in Africa, indicating an African origin for the genotype; Earliest archeological finds related to Homo sapiens sapiens found in Africa.

Adaptations within short time periods within a single species: Development of resistance to antibiotics by many strains of bacteria; Development of resistance to pesticides by many insect species, such as mosquitoes, Colorado potato beetles and others.

Species evolving into new species over time: Adaptive radiation of apple maggot fly switching from hawthorne to apples as host in the last century; Founder effect of laboratory raised polychaete worms no longer able to interbreed with wild populations of worms; Induced speciations in several strains of fruit flies; Polyploid hybridization of many plant species creating new species; Fossil lineages of mammal-like reptiles and horses showing excellent sequence of evolution of one physiological form to others over time, fitting in both chronological and geographic distribution; hundreds (even thousands) of transitional fossils showing transitions between fish and amphibians, reptiles and birds, land mammals and whales, and hundreds of other groups; physiological and morphological characters in animals, plants and other organisms that show both a wide diversity of form while maintaining a strong conservation of physiognomy (i.e. all terrestrial vertebrates have four limbs, all mammals have a single jaw bone and three inner ear bones, all insects have three body sections, six legs, four wings and mouthparts modified from the same set of five appendages); geographically isolated groups of organisms show a similarity in ancestry in that they share physiologies and morphology (i.e. marsupials in Australia and South America, finches on the Galapagos, cavimorph rodents in South America, xenarthrans in South America, cichlids in African lakes); similarities of structure and adaptation in similar but isolated ecosystems, while also showing differences in structure, physiology and genetics that indicate divergent ancestry (convergent evolution - found on many islands, and millions of examples among insects)

Morphological, physiological, genetic and fossil evidence that matches with the independent dates for various geological formations and the age of the Earth as determined by physicists, radiometric dates from geologists, dendrochronology from botanists, lake varves from limnologists, glacial ice cores and stellar evidence from astronomers. Dates match and corellate perfectly for hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence.

There are literally millions of pieces of evidence all of which are consistent with the explanations and predictions generated through the theory of evolution. This is why evolution is still accepted as the most powerful and useful theory in the entire realm of biology. There is literally more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.

For more information on these and many, many other topics, check out http://www.talkorigins.org