|
|
|
|
kpccrysler
New Member
3 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2009 : 17:31:09
|
|
Senior in College, doing a research project on Evolution and Creationism, what are the most concrete evidences of Evolution? What are the best arguements against Creationism? Nutshells, of course.
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2009 : 18:09:36 [Permalink]
|
Hello, and welcome to SFN.
Concrete evidences of Evolution/best arguements against Creationism...nutshells?....that's real easy -- the existence of life on this planet, and the scientific study thereof. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2009 : 18:14:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kpccrysler
Senior in College, doing a research project on Evolution and Creationism, what are the most concrete evidences of Evolution? What are the best arguements against Creationism? Nutshells, of course.
|
I will answer both with a single link: Talk Origins! the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
|
Open the link and click on "Index." This is the most valuable store of information a student of evolution can have.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2009 : 18:16:04 [Permalink]
|
| Hi, kpccrysler. There's lots to talk about. But here is a nice thread where one of our own lays out a few compelling arguments for primates (including humans) having a common ancestor. It's long, but can easily be distilled into something much shorter. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2009 : 20:57:40 [Permalink]
|
Nutshells?
Ok; the way science works is that you build up a theory to explain your observations.
Then your theory allows you to make predictions. For example, in the germ theory of disease, one would predict that the same germs is always associated with the same disease.
At this point, you make more observation and see if your prediction holds true. If it does, you have strengthened your theory. You have not 'proved' it, of course, as it always possible that one of its prediction will later been shown not to come true (hence, theories are the highest level of scientific explanation you can find and the sentence: 'Evolution is just a theory' is disingenuous).
The main problem with creationist, and its true for all forms of creationism including its closeted city cousin, Intelligent Design, is that it make no testable predictions at all.
Hence you can not apply the scientific method and, hence, it is just, plainly, not scientific in nature. It is purely Religious.
On the other hand, the theory of evolution makes a lot of predictions and has yet to be proven false.
For example, the theory of evolution implies a mean for the transmission of information. That much is pretty obvious and was self-evident even in Darwin's time (although Mendell's concept of genes had only been discovered and it would not become well known until one generation later. Darwin himself was unaware of this advance).
But Evolution also requires mutation to drive it. And the notion of genetic mutation was really far away then. In fact, when Mendellian genetic became better known, some scientist felt that it disproved Darwin's theories.
Another massive prediction if the arborescent pattern of nature.
Basically, if one organism 'invent' a feature, you can expect to see it present in its descendants. But not in the ones that from other organism.
Similarly, if an organism loose a feature, all its descendant will also have lost it.
For example, a mammalian ancestor 'invented' fur, and now, only its descendents have fur. Another 'invented' lactation, and you will only find lactating animals within its descendant.
Chimeras, animal presenting mixed features only exist in legend (that's not to say that features that appear superficially similar can not develop independently, but these are only very rough approximate from each other - no zoologist would mistake a bird wing for a bat wing, for example).
Since the 1980ies we have been able to look closely at the genes too. Literally millions of genes have been sequenced, and, so far, all fit very neatly within this arborescence.
If Gene 1 in species A looks more like Gene 1 in species B than gene 1 in species C; then Gene 2 and 3 will also be more similar to the ones in species B than in species C.
While we are on the subject, let's mention Endogenous RetroViruses.
These are viruses that integrate themselves into the genomes. Sometime, they can integrate themselves into a germ cells, and become inheritable. Because the insertion site of the virus's genome is random, if two individuals share the same ERV, it is a good sign that they share a common ancestor (roughly, one in 3 billion chance for the same virus to be integrated at the same spot in the genome). I can't seem to find the precise number, but we share roughly a dozens markers with chimp. So that would be one chance in 3,000,000,000^12 for it to happen purely randomly.
Of course, we also have ERV in common with both chimp and gorilla (of course, we don't share any ERV with gorillas that we don't also share with chimps), the arborescent pattern is again confirmed.
Transitional species. Evolution is a gradual process, so it is predicted that, an uninterrupted line of ancestry unite every species.
So, there have existed transitional species that harboured this progressive evolution. Fossilisation is a rare phenomenon, so the record is incomplete.
But let's not exagerate that last statement either, the fossil record is still very complete and give us a very accurate picture for most lineages.
Furthermore, based on various fossils, Evolution can also predict what features a particular transitional species will have and even when it lived. And it's have been done, for example with Tiktaalik, the tetrapod ancestor.
Ok, my post is getting long and it's getting a bit late.
So, let's just say that the theory of evolution makes many prediction and that many new facts have been found that could have put it into trouble.
So far, it has not happen. Every single new piece of evidence fits nicely within the Evolutionary framework. What's more, all this new evidence agrees with each other.
Creationists, of course, have no such thing. Their whole idea is to discredit Evolution and pretend that this prove creationism. Not only is it a logical fallacy, they also have failed spectacularly in the first part in their endeavour.
In fact, there is only a couple of scientific papers ever published by creationists and they only deal with the subject very tangentially. In essence, they are not interested in doing science. They just focus on misinforming the public.
To conclude, let me recomand a few sites:
Talk origin part about ERVs
29+ proofs of macroevolution
Potholer's channel with a lot of wonderful videos.
nd, more about refuting creationism: an index to creationists' claims
Thunderfoot, the mightiest bunny of them all, more videos.
Anyway, best of luck with your project. What class is it for?
And, please, don't hesitate to come back if you have more questions and to let us know how it went. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 03:19:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kpccrysler
Senior in College, doing a research project on Evolution and Creationism, what are the most concrete evidences of Evolution? What are the best arguements against Creationism? Nutshells, of course.
|
Not being native to USA, I find this request puzzling.
In my country, 9th-graders are taught the basics of evolution as part of the mandatory biology lessons. Genetics, mutations, and natural selection is covered, though parhaps not deep enough to cover ERVs.
But, personally I consider ERVs in Hominids and the Nylon eating bacteria two of the absolutely most damaging evidences against Creationism.
ERVs are outstanding evidence for humans sharing common ancestors with the other great apes.
The Nylon eating bacteria is a perfect example on how a random mutation has increased the information in the genome, and additionally created a completely novel way to digest something that was previously not digestable. (something creationists often say cannot happen)
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 03:51:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Not being native to USA, I find this request puzzling.
In my country, 9th-graders are taught the basics of evolution as part of the mandatory biology lessons. Genetics, mutations, and natural selection is covered, though parhaps not deep enough to cover ERVs. |
Truly, it's not all bad here, Mab. I attended a very working class high school in the early 1960's. We had two remarkable and enthusiastic biology teachers there, Messrs. Howell and Rodriquez, who combined their classes and lesson plans to play tag-team while teaching their students a very thorough grounding in biology.
True, ERVs weren't taught, but little was known about viruses in those days. We learned likely origins for the first life (including the Urey experiment), and how live diversified through Deep Time to arrive at what we have today. We studied Lamarck and Darwin, and understood how much better Darwin got things. ("Acquired characteristics are not inherited!" was the mantra there.) We had to have a good knowledge of Mendelian genetics, and understand how both recessive and dominant genes were passed along. We were taught the structure and some of the known functions of DNA and RNA. We learned about metabolism, anabolism and catabolism, and about the many and often strange sexual and asexual forms of reproduction. We even learned about critters that altered their forms each generation. We went on field trips to La Jolla to study tide pool life.
Wherever there are inspired teachers, fortunate and attentive kids will learn good science. I was one of the lucky ones, privileged to be a student of Howell and Rodriquez at San Diego's Lincoln High School. Go Hornets!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 08:09:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kpccrysler
Senior in College, doing a research project on Evolution and Creationism, what are the most concrete evidences of Evolution? What are the best arguements against Creationism? Nutshells, of course.
|
You have been given information and links to thoroughly answer your questions. But in the shortest nutshell possible......There is MOUNTAINS of evidence backing evolution while there is not one single piece of (testable) evidence backing creationism.....not one. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
kpccrysler
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 10:05:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by kpccrysler
Senior in College... |
Just out of curiosity, what's your major?
|
Political Science, Minor in Communications.
Thanks for all the information guys. It's been a lot of help. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 10:41:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kpccrysler
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by kpccrysler
Senior in College... |
Just out of curiosity, what's your major?
|
Political Science, Minor in Communications.
Thanks for all the information guys. It's been a lot of help.
|
Excellent! What with all of the low-life, political skulduggery by creationists trying to get their nonsense voted into public school science class', and the utter crap they spew forth toward that end, we need you!
Wishing all the best with your studies, and don't be a stranger, eh?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 11:10:12 [Permalink]
|
ERVs
Human Chromosome 2
Nylonase
Suboptimality.
Need more just ask. Those are pretty convincing bits of evidence though.
Best argument against creationism? Simple: It has ZERO supporting evidence. It is just a bunch of crap made up by ignorant people.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 11:12:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
True, ERVs weren't taught, but little was known about viruses in those days.
|
In fact, endogenous retro-viruses were only discovered in the late 60ies.
And it took a while longer for people to have access to enough sequences in both human and chimps to be able to detect the pattern.
Your teacher seems to have done an amazing job, indeed, using the top-information available to him at the time.
I do believe, however, that the whole creationist crazyness only really started in the 80ies (looking at Morris' biography, he seems to have started publishing his drivel in the early 60ies, but only founded the ICR in the 70ies. I suspect, without being inclined to do the actual research, that it then took several more years to gain traction.
So, you might have lived in a relative golden age for the teaching of Evolutionary science.
Once again, kpccrysler, best of luck in your project. Don't hesitate to come back if you have more question or if you want us to have a look at your first draft. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 16:45:22 [Permalink]
|
Simon said:
I do believe, however, that the whole creationist crazyness only really started in the 80ies (looking at Morris' biography, he seems to have started publishing his drivel in the early 60ies, but only founded the ICR in the 70ies. I suspect, without being inclined to do the actual research, that it then took several more years to gain traction.
|
Creationism has been around for much longer than that Simon!
1926 Scopes Trial.
But yeah, for most of the history of christianity the creation story has been interpreted as allegory.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 17:54:39 [Permalink]
|
| Fair enough; I was thinking about "Creation Science". |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2009 : 18:58:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by kpccrysler
Political Science, Minor in Communications. |
So is this evolution/creation research project more about the "culture war" or religiously-politicized science than it is about the raw facts? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Doing some research on Creationism...
