Evidence for or against evolution

I think ERVs are good evidence. There was a good thread on this at christianforums.com, you should check it out:

Ancient Remnants of Viral Infection Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Another good thread from the same poster:

Some of the evidence for chimp-human common ancestry.

Both posts are long reads, but it's worth it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Genetic relation of all species as well as linage and mapping of ancestry genetically.

The only way this would be possible without evolution is if "god(s)" liked to trick people by making it look like one species is the genetic ancestor of another. Unfortunately anti-evolutions might find that a good argument with their delusional logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm...
The fact that everyone is posting evidence for it, not against it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I meant that we don't really know the process of evolution. We just see the results and infer natural selection as a limiting factor... but that's not addressing the actual evolution.

 

What do u mean by 'actual evolution'?
There is no other means of explaining evolution as far as I can tell other than natural selection, and there's not too much wrong with that theory. We do know the process of evolution on a short-timescale but we cannot prove that it has occured over large time-scales.

 

fossil record.

 

That cannot prove the NS theory but it strongly suggests it and I think anyone is a fool not to believe NS is the process.

 

Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it true. the majority of the world still does not believe in evolution for example.

 

Just because there is no other theory besides NS doesn't mean it is right... and there ARE holes in it.

For all intestive purposes we can prove that it has occured over large timespans. We just can't prove why beyond any doubt. We know for a fact that creatures have changed.

 

First of all, you ought to have noticed the "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

" at the end that indicated my post was one of humor. I'm perfectly aware that beliefs don't alter reality no matter how many people believe it. Second, the majority of the world doesn't believe in evolution because the majority is unaware of it. Amongst educated people, the majority believe it. And they should. Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory of evolution concerns the mechanism of evolution, but the fact of it's existence cannot logically be denied.

 

Sure I know you were joking.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but I would have to disagree on the reasoning about why people don't believe in evolution, lets take the USofA, though redneckish and retarded mentally in many ways it’s still a first world country and yet the majority does not believe in evolution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

here is a quote on proof

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml

conclusion:
Yes, the fossil record is clearly an example of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

I would rather gladly hear about the big holes in natural selection because I have never heard about them before.

 

1) the rate of evolution
2) origin of first living cell
3) evolution of things that are not wholly genetically dependant (language)

 

The rate of evolution is simply the rate of reproduction. Each generation is a step in evolution so it depends on the species.

This is kind of difficult, but he did ask for holes in natural selection, which differs from the theory of evolution as a whole.
Besides, the building blocks of life have been reproduced in laboratory conditions using heat and water with a simulated precipitation cycle. These 'building blocks' have shown they can join together, its really not a big step. This isn't a big hole as much as its one piece of the 10 000 000 000 piece puzzle that isn't in place, we can still see the big picture quite clearly.

Why would that be a problem?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We know exactly how it happens if you're over 10 you've watched it evolve in your own life time. Its called cultural evolution and works exactly like biological evolution. Not with genetics because it has nothing to do with genetics, the actual animal doesn't change in cultural evolution.
Even in biological evolution the genetics aren't the important part that need to be understood. You just need to know in a litter of 7 kittens, 4 avoid dogs, 4 survive and pass on their dog avoiding qualities. Over time the population of felines becomes more suited to avoiding dogs, in body and mind. Its very basic. If you get caught up in the text book stuff you lose sight of the whole essence of the concept.

 

Phonemes, isn't it? Cultural "genes"... It's like the "Wassuuuuup!" That was a phoneme that spread over a large area. Did it make it to Europe? Australia? How far did it go?

 

The proper term is "meme"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=memes
for example a handshake or the act of shaking hands is a meme, a transmittable learnable behavior. Language, Religion, Philosophies all of these are also memes. Culture and technology evolve, but they evolve less like Darwinian or natural evolution and more like Lamarckian evolution because we can mutate and improve on a behavior or technology by intelligent will, unlike in Darwinian evolution where mutations seem to happen by random chance.

 

I disagree here. The rate of evolution seems to change wildly.
[quote[This is kind of difficult, but he did ask for holes in natural selection, which differs from the theory of evolution as a whole.[/quote]Agreed.

I'm not sure about this. Memes are only possible it we are bilogically capable of understand/using them. the ability to understand/use them is only usefull with the memes.

 

Other animals have memes: for example even songbird have songs specific to the region with bird in another region of the same species having different songs! Its simply a matter of being able to learn from example.

 

What is exactly the problem with that?

 

What do u mean by right? Very few theorys may be considered right (even relativity) but they work. However, of all theories u pick to argue this, Natural selection is one which actually does happen both theoretically and practically.

Again I disagree completely with your viewpoint. We cannot prove that Natural selection has given rise to all of evolution but we know exactly why and how it occurs and also from that, we can prove that it must take account for a large part of it (if not all of it).