need help with evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2016, 11:05 PM
RE: need help with evolution
OK, one example. Humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor. That's about as macro as your evolution gets.

For a start there's all the fossil [1, 2] and morphological evidence [3, 4]. Strangely, some people don't find that compelling in spite of the ~10,000 individuals that we now have fossil remains available from.

Next let's talk genetics. Humans and chimps share between 95 and 99% of their genetic material [5, 6, 7] depending on exactly how you make the comparison. Creationists frequently cite lower percentages based on biased comparisons done by the ICR and their ilk. Still, some people aren't convinced.

OK, let's look at genetic mistakes. Pseudogenes, broken genes and non-coding DNA. We share as much "junk" DNA with the chimps as we do functional DNA [8, 9], including that pesky pseudogene that doesn't make vitamin C in any of the apes and gives us scurvy[10]. Funny how God gave us the same genetic mistakes as the chimps though. You'd almost think he was plagiarizing.

Time to get down to brass tacks. Let's talk Endogenous Retroviri (ERV for short). Retroviri have this nasty habit of jumoing in and out of a host's genome to avoid being devoured by the immune system. Every now and then one gets stuck and becomes an endogeous retovirus. These ERV make up several percent of your DNA [11]. A few of those get stuck in the germ line and get passed on. A few end up causing disease while a few more have been co-opted into serving our needs but most are just silent, non-coding junk.

Not only do humans and chimps share the overwhelming majority of their ERV, those ERV are imbedded in the same locations in human and chimp genomes and lastly, the ERV have the same mutations in both humans and chimps[12]. The ERV evidence is so persuasive that you can build phylogenetic trees of all the apes using nothing more than these accidental viral fossils [13]. So now god gave us and all the apes identical retroviral infections, embedded them in our genes in exactly the same spot and gave those ERV the same mutations.

Perhaps your friend still isn't convinced but that's self-defeating because all he's really doing now is giving us the final proof that not everything that walks upright is human.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
06-06-2016, 11:20 PM
RE: need help with evolution
There's no single "best" piece of evidence out there, because there's so damn much evidence we could never find a single piece that rawks better than everything else. If anything, the "best" evidence is how ALL the evidence holds together. But here's one approach.

First of all, you have to break down macro-evolution for him. Explain to him that it's not really a scientific concept. The dichotomy between micro-evolution and macro-evolution was fabricated by people out to deny science, rather than people trying to study and understand it. As a result, it's deceptive and difficult to pin down. Challenge him to provide his definition for it, since there isn't actually a scientific definition. He's the one asking the question, so he should know what he means when he uses the term. But pin him down on it or, at least, get him to accept a particular definition before moving on.

The typical definition is that what distinguishes macro-evolution from micro-evolution is that new species come into existence with macro but don't with micro... but the deniers don't really break down what counts as a new or distinct species. They act like the idea of what counts as a different species is so obvious that they don't really bother to define it, and then they use this ambiguity as wiggle room to deny that there actually is a new species when presented with examples. So again, pin him down. What makes two population groups a distinct species or not? If he can't articulate this clearly or places the ball in your court, propose the scientific definition: Two population groups are distinct if they cannot with even marginal reliability produce viable offspring between each other. For example, two breeds of dog -- let's say a German Shepherd and a Labrador -- can easily produce a viable offspring (a mutt) and hence they are not different species. However, no matter how kinky things get, a dog and a rabbit will not produce an offspring, so dogs and rabbits are different species. Horses and donkeys CAN produce offspring with each other -- mules -- but these offspring are almost always sterile. Because the offspring are not viable, horses and donkeys count as different species.

In any case, get him to agree to these definitions, or if he won't to articulate his own. It's his own question about macro-evolution, so he should know what he means by it. Be sure to hold the line that his definitions are not necessarily the definitions that scientists use. It is quite possible that evolution as he is describing it DOESN'T happen -- if so, clearly explain that he is intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding what scientists claim evolution is.

(A possible example of what he might want to see is, say, a dog evolving into a cat. Explain that scientists don't think that this happened, but rather both evolved from a common ancestor that was neither dog nor cat. Hit Wikipedia for 15 minutes and show him what the scientists ACTUALLY say about the lineage. Acknowledge that this isn't proof, but force him to admit that he was demanding proof for something that evolutionary scientists think is flat out false. Perhaps research a slide show of fossil skeletons tracing the two branches to their ultimate destination. Hopefully, he'll acknowledge the changes from ancestor to descendant as microevolution, and the splitting of species into two different species as macroevolution, so the challenge will be explaining how the dog and cat lineages split from their common ancestor, rather than how they reached their present forms from the common ancestor. But evolution deniers often don't know their own terms, so no guarantees. It might help to show him the Wikipedia articles on macroevolution and microevolution, to get him to accept their definitions.)

Assuming he agrees to these definitions (and he may well not), point out that a denial of macro-evolution is essentially a denial of the idea that a population group can go from being capable of viable interbreeding, to having two segments not capable of viable interbreeding -- essentially splitting off into two separate, mutually non-compatible groups. At this point, the only evidence you need is that a species can and has done exactly this.

That's why all this setup is important, btw. It turns the denial of macro-evolution into a falsifiable claim by clearly establishing what sort of evidence would falsify it.

Assuming you get this far, I'd say a good bet is the greenish warbler. The greenish warbler is one of the best examples of a ring species. A ring species is one where the "can it breed with itself" question is a bit thorny. Think of it like a chain that is wrapped around an inhospitable central territory where it can't live. Each link of the chain is a subspecies or breed of greenish warbler, and can quite easily interbreed with the neighboring links (breeds) of greenish warbler, and not quite as easily with those a few links away. However, those on one far end of the chain can't interbreed with those on the other far end of the chain... even when the chain has looped around the uninhabitable (for warblers) Tibetan plateau and met on the far side. You have the extreme ends of the chain sharing the same territory, but unable to interbreed, even if interbreeding along the chain is possible.

At this point, all you have to do is imagine that something severs the center of the chain by wiping out a few links in the chain. A volcano, maybe, or a meteor, or deforestation destroying their habitat. Anything that severs the chain. At this point, you would no longer have a ring species. You'd have two distinct species... and they can continue to evolve away from each other into very different forms (and have already), and if he accepts "microevolution" then he shouldn't have any problem with the idea of a single species changing form like that.

But the key points are, first, there would now be TWO species where there were previously one, and second, no further evolution would be required to separate the species, and third, greenish warblers PRESENTLY EXIST AS A RING SPECIES. You wouldn't have to argue that a species could theoretically diverge so that its extremes can't interbreed. There's an actual example of that in existence in reality.

If he makes the connection, offer other scenarios. Two populations of animals get separated when a lake dries up, denying the water that the populations would need to migrate between their separate habitats. Or maybe a new river carves out a path, physically separating them. Or maybe a section of forest dies or burns and the species isn't able to cross the dead section to interact with the other population group. Slowly microevolution makes them different enough that they can't interbreed.

So to recapitulate, the strategy is:

1) Extract from him definitions for what macroevolution is and what makes species count as distinct. If he tries to punt on this, point out that he's asking the question and if he doesn't even know what he means by the question, he's just talking gibberish. But be ready to provide the standard definitions.
2) Assuming (and it's a big assumption) he goes with the definitions that the "intelectuals" of the evolution-denialists put forward, it will be that one species can't split into two separate species.
3) Show him a single species, the greenish warbler, that is just one easy disaster away from being split into two separate species.

......

...

.

Oh, and before you go anywhere with this, be sure to establish that this question is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of theism/atheism. It's possible to have theists who believe in macroevolution and to have atheists that don't. Proving evolution doesn't disprove God, proving God doesn't disprove evolution, disproving God doesn't prove evolution, and disproving evolution doesn't prove God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
06-06-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: need help with evolution
(06-06-2016 09:10 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The macro/microevolution false dichotomy is a bunch of nonsense cooked up by cretinists when they could no longer deny that evolution happens. They agreed that it happened, but only on tiny scales. "Microevolution." All "macroevolution" is is a whole lot of microevolution that's accumulated. There is no macro or micro. It's all just evolution.
There's a progression from a group of "related" animals being procreationally compatible to being procreationally difficult to being procreationally incompatible.

Speciation is where they go from being compatible to non compatible. Speciation happens at such a slow rate we cannot "see" this happen in just our life time but we can see the impact of this happening over many generations of separation because the evidence is there in Ring species and genetic markers.

I think the best example of this is Ring species (google it).

More evidence is within genetic markers, from these we can tell that we had common ancestors with Chimpanzees and Bonobos and earlier than that we had common ancestors with Gorillas and orangutans and earlier than that we had common ancestors with lung fish.

There is of course, much, much more evidence, but those two are top of mind for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2016, 11:40 PM
RE: need help with evolution
I would avoid "ring species". There's still some debate over the validity of the ring species concept, and a savvy Creationist will look to their propaganda sites, and immediately pick up on it. They're very good at disguising their lies as "legitimate" counter-science, even when it's total gibberish and laughable to an actual biologist-- we're not their targets; gullible laypersons are.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2016, 11:55 PM
RE: need help with evolution
(06-06-2016 08:15 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  I'm not as Knowledgeable In evolution as I should be. This is a question someone asked me. I've sent a link from talking origins but he seems to think its nonsense. Thanks everyone.

Whats your best evidence for organic or macro evolution and im not talking variation or micro évolution i want something i can believe not by faith? Just one no links im making it ez for u

The fossil record of the evolution of the whale.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
06-06-2016, 11:57 PM
RE: need help with evolution
(06-06-2016 09:10 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The macro/microevolution false dichotomy is a bunch of nonsense cooked up by cretinists when they could no longer deny that evolution happens. They agreed that it happened, but only on tiny scales. "Microevolution." All "macroevolution" is is a whole lot of microevolution that's accumulated. There is no macro or micro. It's all just evolution.

Google scholar will be your friend here, as with most cretinist debates:
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&...oevolution
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=evol...speciation

... and the real question becomes, what mechanism is in place that prevents "microevolution" (which even many fundies accept) from becoming "macroevolution"?

How does a species stop those changes from accumulating past the point of no return?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2016, 12:48 AM
RE: need help with evolution
(06-06-2016 11:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ... and the real question becomes, what mechanism is in place that prevents "microevolution" (which even many fundies accept) from becoming "macroevolution"?

How does a species stop those changes from accumulating past the point of no return?

The amusing point is that most of them are not even internally consistent, with regard to this question. On the one hand, they say the lack of time (in a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth) stands as a barrier to the type of accumulated changes that would turn "micro" into "macro" ... but on the other hand, when you get them talking about the physical impossibility of fitting two of each of the species currently alive on the planet into a 150m long by 25m wide by 15m high ship (the Ark), they digress into talking about "Created Kinds", and how one basic type of feline would evolve in only 6,000 years to make everything from cats to tigers, a rate of evolution far beyond what science claims.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
07-06-2016, 12:56 AM
RE: need help with evolution
Sunni vs. Shia - micro-evolution... variations on a theme.

Torah vs. Quran - macro-evolution... different versions of the same shit that won't interbreed.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
07-06-2016, 01:06 AM
RE: need help with evolution
Thank u everyone. I understand do much better now. I appreciate everything, I learn so much from this site.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2016, 01:26 AM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2016 01:45 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: need help with evolution
(06-06-2016 08:15 PM)purpledaisies Wrote:  I'm not as Knowledgeable In evolution as I should be. This is a question someone asked me. I've sent a link from talking origins but he seems to think its nonsense. Thanks everyone.

Whats your best evidence for organic or macro evolution and im not talking variation or micro évolution i want something i can believe not by faith? Just one no links im making it ez for u

The year is 1971. Researches have decided to take a small population of a lizard species and introduce it to a novel environment that is isolated from the original, to see how the change affects the lizards across generations. Fast forward 20 years; the researchers are forced to give up on their work, as the Croatian War for Independence, they are told, has made it too dangerous to travel to the test island. Fast forward again to 2004. The area has cooled and research begins anew with new researchers to assess the status of the population; not even sure if it exists still.

The researchers survey the island and find one interesting new population of lizards; the original species home to it are gone, and the test population is not apparently present either.

This newly found species is tested and found to be descended from the transplants; they had evolved entirely new gut structures that segmented their intestines and extended digestion which allowed them to eat the leaves on the island which the species previously had no capacity for doing. The lizards heads also changed to accommodate, growing wider and flatter with far increased bite force, better suiting to a herbivorous population.
The lizards also changed behaviours; their adaptations allowed them to mate more frequently as more resources were available to them, their aggressive and territorial behaviours declined from the those of original species as well.

The test population in all but name evolved on a macro-scale.

(To know a better version; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ution.html . I can also send you a paper on the lizards should you wish)

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: