English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

The DNA evidence ... which includes, but is not limited to, the genetic evidence.

The fossil evidence is extremely compelling, and every single new fossil find verifies the theory. However, the fact that some terrains (like arboreal jungles) are not good for preserving fossils and others (like savannahs and dry lands) are good, the fossil record for *specific* branches in evolution can range from excellent (as in the case of horses) to pretty good (as in the case of humans), to pretty spotty (as in the case of chimps and gorillas).

But the the discovery of DNA evidence works for *every single species* on the planet. If not a single fossil had ever been found, the DNA evidence provides the smoking gun.

The DNA evidence includes the genetic evidence as a subset. This refers to the commonalities in the genes of species. For example, among the primates, the genes for three-color vision and the opposable thumb are found in common among the Old World primates (the African and Asian monkeys and all the Apes), but not in the New World primates (the Central and S. American monkeys). SInce three-color vision and the opposable thumb are in no way related to each other, they reinforce each other as evidence that these are genes that arrived in the primates *after* the continental drift that separated S. America from Africa. Furthermore, it is not just three-color vision as a *feature* we're talking about ... but the exact *gene* ... the same sequence, appearing on the same chromosome. For example, the howler monkey of S. America would seem to be an exception ... as it is one of the few New World monkeys with three-color vision ... but its *gene* for that third color pigment is *different* from that found in all the Old World primates.

But the DNA evidence also includes *non-genetic* DNA ... DNA that does not actually code for genes. As much as 98% of DNA is either "vestigial DNA" (e.g. the DNA that codes for structures like the tail in humans, DNA which is present, but turned off at a certain stage in development), or "junk DNA" (DNA that doesn't code for anything). The very presence of DNA that serves no purpose at all to the organism is evidence by itself of evolution ... just bits and pieces of DNA that have accumulated through billions of years of copying copies. But the additional fact that this useless DNA still has long sequences in common between species, provides *markers* showing unmistakeable patterns of common ancestry.

Finally, the DNA evidence also includes mitochondrial DNA ... DNA outside of the nucleus of cells. The actual *function* of a mitochondrion does not depend on these differences ... the mitochondria of a human living in Norway and South America or a macaque monkey or a cocker spaniel all do essentially the same thing. But the exact similarities and differences in that mitochondrial DNA gives us clear markers of how distantly related those four individuals are. The fact that mitochondrial DNA is inherited entirely from the mother (without complicating recombination with the father's DNA), makes it particularly clear for tracing ancestral lineage.

Even the fact that the *type* of DNA molecules found in living organisms is always the same is evidence of evolution. For example, there could be many different amino acids found in proteins in living organims, but we only find the same set of 20 standard amino acids. There is also no reason that we could not find both right- and left-handed DNA in living organisms ... but we find only right-handed DNA.

In short, even without a single fossil every being found, DNA just *nails* the evidence for common ancestry for every living creature on the planet.

2007-10-23 04:08:52 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 1 0

Not only the fossil record but the genetic evidence behind evolution is very powerful. Our genes are very similar to other organisms and not just mammals. You'd be surprised how much gene similarity you share with a yeast or fly. Moreover, while many of the genes encode proteins that have the same function from organism to organism, most of those genes are not identical but have similarity. That suggests that our genes are changing even though their function doesn't change. Great evidence for natural selection...

2007-10-23 10:20:18 · answer #2 · answered by Franklin 7 · 0 0

Common sense.

There is no one area of evidence that can be said to be convincing of evolution. It has to be a combination, like time and fossil record.

2007-10-23 10:08:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The fact that the theory of evolution has been tested by many different scientific fields (biology, zoology, oceanography, molecular biology, genetics, ecology etc etc etc) and it has never been disproven. And each field continues to generate more supporting data for the Theory of evolution.

It really has reached the point where the scientific community could start debating its status as scientific Law.

2007-10-23 11:21:57 · answer #4 · answered by Captain Algae 4 · 0 0

Not really the most powerful evidence, but an interesting argument.

If everything was created as it is on one day, and Cicadas hatch after seventeen years of gestation, wouldn't they only be heard every 17th year after creation?

Like I said, not the most powerful evidence, but it can get some people thinking about it.

2007-10-23 10:05:16 · answer #5 · answered by wolfmankav 3 · 0 1

Mitochondrial DNA


I believe in both God and evolution. Yes, it's possible to believe in both. I think it's foolish to reject the possibility of either because of the belief in one. We don't know enough about either one to assume we know everything. And I'm not going to close my eyes to evidence just because I have one source that shows otherwise. I believe that if evolution is real, God did it for a reason. I don't presume to know the answer to why.

2007-10-23 10:00:25 · answer #6 · answered by SurrepTRIXus 6 · 2 0

You only need to look in your backyard... EVERY FLOWER... and I do mean EVERY FLOWER... is an evolution from the original FLOWER... It is impossible for a flower to NOT evolve or it won't survive.

What I don't understand is, why do people who believe that GEEZUS will come down from 'heaven' and we will all rise up in the air to meet him... can DOUBT that EVOLUTION is REAL...

Evolution can be PROVEN... Evolution is REAL SCIENCE... and that is a whole lot more than some childish belief that GEEZUS will come down from 'Heaven'. which is not even a good bedtime story for children.

2007-10-23 10:07:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The fruit flies of Hawaii. That, and I look a lot like a chimp.

2007-10-23 14:49:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The fossil record. And the number of transition fossils that have been found.

2007-10-23 09:59:10 · answer #9 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers