Tweet
You are most wrong to state that there is no evidence for evolution
Stating such clearly indicates your bias and ignorance. Face it Rat - you are just Medevial - you willing choose ignorance over knowledge - and you wallow in this -- how sad/pityful - for someone who proports to be intelligent. You reject Science and the process of Scientific discovery as the primary basis for attaining knowledge. You are a primitive...a mere rodent it seems...unevolved as it were.
And again (repost) - here is a clear summation of the body of evidence which strongly suggests (proves) the basic truth of Evolution (common descent). Evolution is good science and science is the best we have to go on to explain (our) reality.
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Introduction
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
(see specific links for eveidence that is present...)
Conclusion:
Regarding the evidence for Evolution:
...the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations. This is why scientists call universal common descent the "fact of evolution". As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred; nevertheless, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether Darwinism, Lamarckism (i.e. inheritance of acquired characaters), or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless.
This point has an interesting parallel in physics. Newton's theory of universal gravitation describes a phenomenon of matter, just as macroevolution describes a phenomenon of life. The theory of universal gravitation is also independent of the specific explanatory mechanism for gravity, and in fact Newton never gave a mechanism for gravity. Why does the force between two masses follow the inverse square law and not another law (perhaps an inverse cube law)? It took nearly 300 years before any plausible mechanisms for gravity were proposed (by quantum field theorists). None of these proposed mechanisms currently have any experimental support. Additionally, theories of gravity are strictly dependent upon the concept of mass, and there currently is no empirically supported mechanism for giving mass to matter. Charles Darwin is considered such a great scientific mind because, unlike Newton and Einstein who proposed only descriptive theories, Darwin proposed both a descriptive theory and a plausible mechanism. That mechanism is, of course, heritable variation with natural selection.
Stating such clearly indicates your bias and ignorance. Face it Rat - you are just Medevial - you willing choose ignorance over knowledge - and you wallow in this -- how sad/pityful - for someone who proports to be intelligent. You reject Science and the process of Scientific discovery as the primary basis for attaining knowledge. You are a primitive...a mere rodent it seems...unevolved as it were.
And again (repost) - here is a clear summation of the body of evidence which strongly suggests (proves) the basic truth of Evolution (common descent). Evolution is good science and science is the best we have to go on to explain (our) reality.
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Introduction
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
(see specific links for eveidence that is present...)
Conclusion:
Regarding the evidence for Evolution:
...the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations. This is why scientists call universal common descent the "fact of evolution". As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred; nevertheless, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether Darwinism, Lamarckism (i.e. inheritance of acquired characaters), or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless.
This point has an interesting parallel in physics. Newton's theory of universal gravitation describes a phenomenon of matter, just as macroevolution describes a phenomenon of life. The theory of universal gravitation is also independent of the specific explanatory mechanism for gravity, and in fact Newton never gave a mechanism for gravity. Why does the force between two masses follow the inverse square law and not another law (perhaps an inverse cube law)? It took nearly 300 years before any plausible mechanisms for gravity were proposed (by quantum field theorists). None of these proposed mechanisms currently have any experimental support. Additionally, theories of gravity are strictly dependent upon the concept of mass, and there currently is no empirically supported mechanism for giving mass to matter. Charles Darwin is considered such a great scientific mind because, unlike Newton and Einstein who proposed only descriptive theories, Darwin proposed both a descriptive theory and a plausible mechanism. That mechanism is, of course, heritable variation with natural selection.
Comment