Talk:Evidence of common descent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in evolution.
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] subpages

In order to be encyclopedic, this needs to be split into subpages, within 32kb limit. i.e. although horse evolution is good it needs to be detailed in the example rather than here. I also think we need to look at evidence for evolution vs evidence for (evolution by) natural selection. Dunc|☺ 15:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] immunological, pesticide and antibiotic resistence

I have added sections on the appearance of resistence to antibiotics, DDT and myxomatosis, which are all evidence of evolution. John D. Croft 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] evidence classes

this article needs headings to refer to the types and fields of evidence for evolution, each with elaborations and examples:

-fossil record (obviously) with examples of observed continuous evolution progressions (e.g. graptolites)

-morphological similarities (linking organisms into kingdoms, phyla, classes->species, subspecies etc. and examples of closely allied species in adjacent habitats as evidence for speciation)

-vestigial structures (the whale sequence as a good example - more than one example better)

-genetics/molecular evidence (as backing up morphological similarities, and also adding timescales to speciation and common ancestry)

any more headings?

i dont think there should be any creationism cr*p here. its an article about "evidence for evolution" not "evidence against evolution"

[edit] Fossils as evidence

Cut from article: (there is too much opinion and not enough fact in this article)

They are extremely important as they provide direct evidence of evolution and detailed information on the evolutionary history of life on Earth

Doesn't this sidestep a dispute? Not everyone who regards fossils as authentic, agrees that they provide direct evidence of evolution. Some writers argue that their are so many gaps in the fossil record that this provides a disproof of evolution.

Most scientists also argue that the fossil record has so many gaps due to the difficulties presented in actually MAKING fossils. Spark 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we need to be clear about which of the several definitions of evolution we're talking about. I think in this context it's

"the hypothesis that non-supernatural forces alone caused new species to come into being"

which could be any of the various ideas such as random mutations from cosmic rays, etc.

The main objection to the materialistic theory outlined above is irreducible complexity which asserts that a significant number of inter-species changes are impossible to explain by accumulation of small changes alone. Uncle Ed 19:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You really are very confused aren't you? Anyway, that's what the article is for.
Palaeontology shows the transmutation of species. This was accepted long before Darwin, and was usually explained through Lamarckism, or divine guidance or whatnot.
I believe it can be readily seen that the fossils do not support the evolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please get a real, scientifically accepted source and not some slanted creationist website Spark 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
These "some writers" to which you refer are Christian fundamentalist apologists - not scientists. The fossil record as a whole shows a patterning that illustrates evolutionary history, and hence provides evidence of evolution. There are transitional fossils, but crucially from a holistic approach, there are "no rabbits in the Precambrian" - nothing that falsifies evolutionary theory. It of course, does not illustrate the process of natural selection so well, and it is possible that you are confusing evolution and natural selection (actually I think that the article is not very good becauase it also fails to make that distinction).
In addition, IC is not only nonsense, you have also failed to grasp Behe's argument and have given it your own definition. You also seem to be confusing biochemistry with palaeontology. Dunc|☺ 20:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a note, those "some writers" can explain the fossil record with the world wide flood that is within the creation theory, and surprisingly for most scientists, there are fewer holes in their theory than there are with evolution's explainations. It's always good to know what theories are out there and how much water is held by each. tmfilkins 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)tmfilkins
Um fewer holes? So how on earth did a "world wide flood" create so many fossils at diffrent levels of sediment? And how did it manage to arrange those levels of fossils in order of asending complexity?? And how did it manage to change the radiactivity of the rock inorder that they "appear" to be vastly diffrent ages, also in acending with depth. I think it would help if you read the encyclopedia before you comment on it! Aram —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.203.82.226 (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Evidence of speciation?

I think this article needs to document evidence of speciation, both observed in nature and reproduced in a lab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.63.231.224 (talk • contribs) October 17, 2005.

After that, someone should document evidence of stellar formation, both observed in nature and reproduced in a lab. WTF? Graft 16:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
See triticale. New species produced in the lab a hundred years ago. Pretty mundane stuff. Guettarda 16:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm shocked. 11 or 12 years ago, when the web wasn't even widely known, there was a Usenet group way ahead of the state of this article. (That was my obsession back then.) Check out the talk.origins FAQ on speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Neurodivergent 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transitional fossils

After reading over this article I was dismayed to see this paragraph, especially the first sentence. Hardly any is is not an adequate description of the evidence.

However, in reality, hardly any fossils that were intermediate forms between related groups of species could be found. The lack of continuous fossils records is the major limitation in evidence for the existence of such intermediate forms of organisms. These gaps in the fossil records are called the missing links.

I have added a most informative link at the bottom of the page which gives a host of transitional fossil examples, and explains a lot of the misconceptions surrounding this topic.

I think this section should be edited, but I don't want to step on anybodies toes so I shall wait for now.

Cheers--Hugin&Munin 18:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole article needs rewriting. It's a complete mess. Dunc|☺ 23:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of reasons for incomplete fossil records

Someone removed my edit, which was put in with the hope of creating a 'neutral POV' article.

Please remember that Evolution is a theory. So what is wrong with stating (perhaps in a more appropriate way) that evolution is not a proven theory.

Because evolution is not a theory. I quote, from the wikipedia article on Evolution, "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations, and other random changes in these genes, can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration or horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either nonrandomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift." Spark 10:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically speaking, evolution IS a theory, not a hypothesis, and is also a fact. The equivocation of a theory being a hypothesis, and it not being a fact is very far from a "neutral POV."--Mr Fink 12:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This makes it quite clear that it is not theory. NATURAL SELECTION, the means by which evolution progresses, IS a theory, and is constantly being refined and modified (contrary to what you seem to be saying). That's why this article is no longer 'evidence of evolution', but 'evidence of common descent' (though natural selection would be better). Having an article on 'evidence of evolution' would be like having an article on 'evidence of gravity' - i mean, come on.

I admit that it is accepted as such by educational systems, and certainly there's enough scientists with faith enough to call it true without the proof (or disproof) that science is all about.

but while it remains unproven an encyclopedia should form no bias but present the facts. And so, a perfectly valid reason for having an incomplete fossil record is that none exists.

I may sound like a anti-evolutionist with an agenda just because this argument is not a comfortable one. but there is plenty of precedence for "science" getting it wrong. Consider the controversy when most scientists thought it heresy to say:

  • the earth rotates about the sun.
  • the stars are suns.
  • the earth is spherical.
  • the planets including ours, follow eliptical orbits.
Back then, there was no such thing as the 'scientific method'. That is why what we believe holds much more credibility now than what they believed back then. Spark 10:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even need to go into the 4 elements stuff.. or the crazy medicinal practises. Balzi 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (sorry didn't know how to sign)

I haven't read what was removed, nor any of your other posts (assumong they exist). Still, please know that not only is evolution not a proven theory, no theory is proven. Gravity, analogously, obviously exists, but the way in which it acts is (in part) unknown. It is a fact that evolution exists, but the process is theoretical.
I think we need to be very careful about what we mean when we say evolution is fact. do we mean that the loose concept of things evolving, like a plant grows towards sunlight.. or do you mean species creation by natural selection. I think the first is a fact (verifiable, observable), the second is not. Balzi 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the first (changes occur) is fact, the second (the specific synthesis) is theory. Being a theory, evolution has never been falsified, ever, even though hundreds of findings could have falsified it. There is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution, than there is for the existence of Bill Gates. -- Ec5618 07:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As for science having been wrong before, its true, and not true, simultaneously. Its not true because the path that lead people to believe the Earth was flat was not a scientific one, and it could be argued that science, as we know it, didn't exist when these conclusions were drawn (especially true for the four elements 'stuff'). As for the first point (the earth rotates about the sun), you of course know that this conclusion was held back because of religious strongarming at the time. -- Ec5618 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
hence the quotations around 'science'.. I was irreverently calling science, the then-current group of scientists: who I agree, may have been swayed by religious beliefs or other things. the main fact I think we agree on, that evolutionary (origin of species) discussion has a place for arguments about its correctness, its fitness to describe our world. Much like Christian, Buddhist and Hindu descriptions would be scrutinised and poked and prodded by people. If any theory is absolutely true, then it has nothing to fear by being 'put-through-the-wringer'. Balzi 04:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
True, evolution has nothing to fear from 'the wringer', when it is being wrung by scientists. The general public however is quick to dismiss concepts and truths they find unsettling or complicated, and is susceptible to media campaigns, which means that in the public arena evolution could be dismissed because it appears to be, or is presented as, godless. No other theory has been subjected to such criticism on philosophical grounds, and in most areas of science, scientists are free to do their job, and to discuss the merits of a particular point of a theory.
Evolution is a unique theory, because there are millions of people around the world who would love to disprove it. They would love to be the ones that find a single flaw or logical inconsistency in the synthesis, for ideological reasons, fame or money. Evolution has withstood this sort of scrutiny. Isn't that amazing? -- Ec5618 07:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Note- If you say "just a theory", you really have no business editing any sort of scientific article. Ryan Salisbury 06:22, 4 March 2006

[edit] The Penguin

I'm not sure that penguins' wings should be given as an example of vestigial organs, because don't they sometimes use their wings to guide themselves while swimming, meaning that their wings are not altogether non-functional? Penguin wings might be a better example of exaptation than of vestigial organs--that is, their wings are more like a transitional organ between a wing and a fin. Wje 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. To be honest, I think this entire page is a mess. But please, fix it. -- Ec5618 02:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Done--ErikHaugen 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Vestigial does not mean non-functional. I'll check the article on the topic to make sure Wikipedia is not claiming that. Geoff 05:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't what "vestigial" means, the issue is what is evidence of evolution. I concede that penguin wings are vestigial. However - a useless organ is compelling evidence, a vestigial organ that has as much function as penguin wings doesn't seem to be evidence of evolution.ErikHaugen 23:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Vestigial organ has it right. If you read that article, you should understand that a penguin's wings are, in fact, vestigial, because of their reduced functionality (they can't fly any more). It's evidence for this article. Geoff 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
On an aside, Vesitigial wings on a penguin are proof of evolution, because when Penguins use them to steer, they use them the same way birds use their wings in water. This heavily suggests that penguin wings have evolved from (to the penguins) relatively useless 'flying' wings to only moderately usefull 'steering' wings and that they are becoming more and 'flipper'-like over time. Robrecht 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horse Evolution "one of the best examples of evolutionary theory"?

It states in section 1.2 of the article that "The horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny) based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present (Fig. 3)."

Unfortunately, this horse example is not "one of the best examples of evolutionary history" and it is not based on an almost complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits."

The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to ‘prove’ evolution!

The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. You can't evolve from 15 to 19 to 18 ribs!

There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.

Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentina—fully grown at 43 centimetres (17 inches) high—and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger.

I plan to change this article to make it more verifiable. If you object, please add to this discussion.--EChronicle 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything above about horse evolution is wrong and/or misleading. I suggest you look at [1] for a good primer on horse evolution. JoshuaZ 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything above is not wrong and/or misleading. Saying so would require you to verify it. Thanks, EChronicle 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He did so - he provided a link which clears up some of your obvious misconceptions. Read it, hopefully it will clear up your misunderstanding. Guettarda 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed where it deals with the things that I've brought up. But let me go one by one.

1. How can you go from 15 to 19 to 18 ribs? --EChronicle 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that one is actually dealt with in the citation given, but thats probably because its predicated on such abysmal understanding of basic anatomy. For many mammalian species (horses included) the number of ribs is non-constant although there are most common numbers (this applies to humans as well)). So if rib number can fluctuate within species, what would possibly be the issue? Now EChron, some advice: it would probably be best if you took a few bio courses and then maybe came back. A large amount of the above is so wrong that I'm not even sure where to start. JoshuaZ 22:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The points that I brought up hardly even go into biology - that's besides the point. Since A large amount of the above is so wrong, could you go point by point? Thanks, EChronicle 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure how to say this while staying within WP:CIVIL, so forgive me please if I go over the line. The fact that you don't think that the above issues are biological in nature speaks to your lack of knowledge about the subject. I have given an example of how one of your comments is abysmally misguided. The others are also. I strongly suggest you read the linked article. I don't want to spend my time simply going through and correcting major misconceptions on your part that are related to fundamental misunderstandings of evolution. Please read the linked article, and then maybe we can talk. JoshuaZ 03:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response. I've been searching the web on the subject, let me post a number of websites that I've found that have included the following quotes:

  • But none of this shows the workings of macro-evolution. In fact, the earliest 'dawn horse,' Eohippus, more properly Hyracotherium, was almost certainly not a horse at all. It was an animal resembling the rock badger. And some of these fossils were found in the same strata as some of the others -- they were contemporaneous species.
  • A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in rock strata in the proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The sequence depends on arranging Old World and New World fossils side by side, and there is considerable dispute as to what order they should go in. (That one was by Francis Hitching, a well-known evolutionist)
  • The smallest horses are not older than the bigger horses (as evolution would require). But they are arranged in textbooks in such a way that you would believe they were. Evolutionists believe that the smaller horses evolved into the bigger ones. But the dating method they use ( strata layer based on the geologic column ) contradicts their own beliefs.

Links to the articles:

Sorry that I had to do quotes, but those are reasonable points that you'd have to deal with. I'm also working on the horse article that you linked to...

Thanks, EChronicle 20:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, these are more examples of issues where it would be much easier to explain if you had more bio background. I don't have time to go through all the claims, so I'll note that Hitching is not a biologist or a scientist of any sort, but simply a TV journalist, with no biological background. Note that he also believes in all sorts of other pseudosciences, such as pyramid power. This article gives a pretty good summary of why he isn't worth listening to [2]. It would be very helpful if you actually studied the topic a bit and took a course or two at your local university. JoshuaZ 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I can see why you would discard the Hitching quote, but what about the third one? --EChronicle 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The third one is from a random personal webpage and misses a number of serious points anyways. There is not a perfect progression in increasing size (and one would not expect there to be one) but there is a strong general trend (similar to how better nutrition has made the average human taller now than they were 300 years ago, but some people are still shorter than what the average was then). The claim about the strata layer is as far as I can tell simply false. JoshuaZ 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative Embryology

Hi there, I know, I know, I just did a massive edit on this section of the article: "Evidence of Evolution". This is not proper etiquette I understand, but the facts presented on this section are not up to date.

This isn't a debate either because I am not stating that evolution or any aspect of the theory is wrong but that what is stated in this section is not factual. What is stated in the section is, "Comparative embryology shows how embryos start off looking the same" and "...adult vertebrates are diverse, yet their embryos are quite similar at very early stages." Now, this isn't a theory with equations and processes. All you need to update the information in this encyclopedia section are some actual pictures that prove otherwise.

pictures here[3]

The website above has some pictures of several embryos and I am willing to bet you can find many more pictures in any scientific literature regarding this topic.

Now, I am not taking any side of the evolution-intelligent design debate at all. As you will note, the author of the website is a professor who believes and teaches evolution. He however doesn't not believe in ontgeny recapitulating phylogeny, especially when it is based on Haeckel's fraudulent data. I am sure you will find that this professor is not the only one who thinks so.

What I mentioned about the gill slits had nothing to do with refuting evolution. In fact, I strictly remember stating that, "These pharyngeal arches are common in all vertebrates." This would actually be evidence for evolution not against it. To state that an embryo has "fishlike structures," as it was written before, is just an outdated notion. I noticed that this phrase didn't show up on my third edit; that was my error.

So to sum up my rambling, I did not take any biased viewpoint nor was I trying to impose my viewpoint. I was merely trying to keep this free encyclopedia as current and relevant as possible. And since our scientific knowledge is constantly being updated, modified, and changed, I just felt that this article, which is about a great biological theory, should also be current.

thanks


[edit] Sections that need to be combined

Evidence from palaeontology and Evidence from fossils should not be distinct sections. If subsections for individual transitional forms are going to be done, this could become a very long article. MichaelSH 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faults of Evolution

Evolutionism is merely a theory. You people understand this right?

"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.

"There is...no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin".-Frank M. Carpenter, Evolutionist

In science, theory means that it is well supported by the evidence. Thanks for the contribution. I'm sure scientists will continue to study the gaps in our knowledge which you point out for some time yet. Jefffire 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
And it appears that you have confused the coloquial conception of a theory (meaning little more than a thought or idea) with the scientific definition of theory (an explination for recorded events). It's a common mistake, so I'm just giving you a heads up. -- Majin Gojira 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Are we all aware of excactly who Hooton was? He lived in the late 1800's so why are we quoting him as an example of modern Evolutionary Theory. Perhaps we should quote an expert who was born in the last 100 years. Perhaps someone who could answer the question of "how fin developed" like Richard Dawkins. JustinInSpace 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me that...

"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.

does not even meet the qualifications to receive the grandeur title 'theory'. Let us instead refer to it as a hypothesis.

Since evolution is not science, ( knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; Merrian-Webster ), by the strict definition of the term, we cannot consider it to be fact. To do so it must follow the scientific method of being testable, demonstarable, and observable.

The same is considered of creationism.

One must then form an opinion based on which theory posesses the most demonstatable evidence. To call one idea false and another truth is to believe one or the other as a religion, or have proved ones believed theory empirically correct. So until we can spontaneously produce life from a rock or the Rapture occurs, let us continue to search for the truth, without using faulty findings or beliefs as evidence. To do so IS NOT science. EParadigm 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This post hurts my head. It is written for the sole purpose of inciting pointless ageold creationist arguements against evolution. This is amptly shown by the fact that each point the writer used is a basic fallacy pointed out in the Creation-evolution controversy article. The above article shows quite clearly that the writer has no clue what the theory of evolution is and what the evidence that supports this theory is. It is rather sad that people will disagree about evolution out of pure ignorance rather than read up on the topic (both from scientific and creationist sources) and then make a decent post.--Roland Deschain 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Must we argue over terminology? Evolution can be labelled as theory or fact in many of its facets. No sane person on the planet can deny that evolution at least happens on a small scale. Just look at humans. We have evolved since the Dark Ages when people had smaller, stouter frames. Even theologians state that many famous charaters from the Bible such as Solomon and David were considerably taller than modern humans. Also, one may look at most domesticated animals. Dogs, for example, are most definately different from the wolves that we know they decended from. If a wolf can transform into a teacup dog over a few thousand years, then even more amazing things could happen over millions. This is all I wish to say about this arguement (to hopefully end it) because this arguement of "faults" in evolution is rather irrelevant to the purpose of this discussion page-- "To better the article." JustinInSpace 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that evolution happens on a small scale doesn't prove it can on a large scale. That's extrapolating too much. Btw, don't use references from the Bible unless you accept it as a reliable source, in which case you would disprove evolution. 71.161.63.149 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your gross ignorance is appalling. Evolution has been observed both in large scale and in small scale, in the fossil record, and in the observation of actual speciation events like in the apple maggot fly, and in the lineages of orchids, tulips, dogs, pigeons and goldfish, and it has been proven that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolution. Saying that macroevolution can't be proven through the extrapolation of microevolutionary trends is among the most shameful examples of willful ignorance I've encountered. Furthermore, how exactly does using the Bible as a reliable source disprove things like the observed trends in trilobite fossil lineages? Because your paranoid preacher told you so under pain of hellfire?--Mr Fink 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted to the previous version because the anonymous user made the article sound unencyclopedic and changed the british spelling to american spelling, which wasnt required. skorpion 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossilisation vs fossilization

As I have recently fallen victim to being an anonymous user, I would like to point out to all those claiming American bias that there are eight occurrances of "fossilize" or "fossilization" and two occurrances of "fossilise" or "fossilisation". Perhaps you should consider this and fix it, as I have been told to leave the original spelling. Additionally, perhaps someone would like to re-insert the corrections I made (such as "flor of the mouth") since you apparently insist on reverting anything I do.

I suppose we can go with the Z spelling, which is acceptable if not preferred in BE. Outside that, the original spelling should be left intact. Moulder 03:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of bias, it's a matter of policy. Leave valid spellings alone. Simple enough. Guettarda 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come on people, lets get the raw power of genetics going here

The "Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry" section is in a sad state. I just cleaned it up and added a bunch of see-alsos up top. It should be the strongest section in the whole article because genetics, which has given us so many medical advances, is dependent on the idea of selection-based evolution. Nobody, not even the creationists, can geny the clear chemical and biological laboratory evidence for genetics, and the genome implies evolution. We need to make this perfectly clear to all readers of this article.

Almost all of the see-alsos which I put in the front of that section have evidence for evolution mentioned somewhere in their articles -- often quite easily as entire sections. Please pick one, and turn it into a sub-section today:

BenB4 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence from genetics is, in my opinion, some of the most persuasive. I think it'd be valuable to include something on human chromosome #2 and how it is the result of a fusion in two chromosomes that remain separate in the other three great apes.[4] Jacob1207 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence from Palaentology

Just wondering why citation is needed for the below quote...

For fossilization to take place, the traces and remains of organisms must be quickly buried so that weathering and decomposition do not occur. Skeletal structures or other hard parts of the organisms are the most commonly occurring form of fossilized remains.[citation needed] There are also some trace "fossils" showing moulds, cast or imprints of some previous organisms.


I would have thought this was well-documented. It was certainly considered obvious by my geology tutor. Weenerbunny 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Most people never took geology. One of the major (misguided) objections to fossil evidence is that science should have unearthed a lot more. Chemistry, phyics, and geology tells us why that is not the case (for fossilization to occur a lot of events need to happen shortly aften the organism dies). It should not be hard finding a book or web reference to back up that statement.--Roland Deschain 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point... I'll rummage through my storage- pretty sure I've got some old textbooks lying around- and see if I can track something down :) Weenerbunny 13:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, my old textbooks are SOMEWHERE... In the mean time, the fossils page here has a large amount of information on the subject. If I can find out what they use for citation would that help? Weenerbunny 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Added three refs on taphonomy. Vsmith 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) Weenerbunny 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes an Example of Convergent Evolution (or not?

In the subsection entitled Analogous structures and convergent evolution, eyes are listed as evidence for Convergent Evolution. Yet immediately following there is an excursis explaining that eyes are no longer considered a good example of convergent evolution. Which is it? ndansmith 21:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It has long been claimed that eyes are convergent structures (morphological evidence was the main source). However, this view has changed over the past decade with the detailed understanding of developmental genes that showed that the most important genes involved in eye development are strongly conserved across the entire Animal lineage. This has established that the basic plan for a light detecting organ is not convergent, but rather homologous across all animal life.--Roland Deschain 03:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Mammalian and cephalopod molluscan eyes use similar genes, but appear to have evolved independantly. Essentialy it would appear (although I may be wrong) that they both shared an ancestor with a simple eye, and both converged independantly on the camera type. I'll research this one and find out. Jefffire 08:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As I suspected it was OR. The writer mistook common descent and homologous genes for total homology. Jefffire 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this make eyes a nice example of early divergent evolution followed by later convergent evolution? Possibly not depending on the conservation of the homologous genes. Still, that'd make the story a whole lot more interesting - and make eyes an ever better evolutionary example to use. --Plumbago 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hard to say really. There are a fair few examples of similar genes being coopted to similar roles in divergant lineages, despite the common ancestor using it differently, like HOX genes in plants, fungi and animals. It's interesting, but too speculative for an article. Jefffire 09:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential evidence

The Hawthorn fly is touted as evidence of evolution, but this is someone's POV. At a minimum, it needs attribution to a published source. Like

  • Roberts uses the example of the Hawthorn fly as evidence of evolution.

Given phrases like "appears to be appears to be undergoing", "possibly new population", "whether or not the apple feeding subspecies may further evolve into a new species", this is proto-science.

Readers are looking for an example of one species evolving into another. If this is it, please provede a ref that says so. --Uncle Ed 13:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The author clearly call this speciation. It's verified and peer-reviewed. Is there a serious scientific source questioning this? Jefffire 13:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case, it is evidence of evolution, even if it not proof. Evidence needn't be undisputable. I'm removing the NPOV banner. If this turns into an actual dispute it can go back up. -- Ec5618 13:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That it's evidence of evolution is indisputable. Whether it's evidence of speciation may be disputable, since the species concept is disputable. This article is called evidence of evolution not evidence of speciation. Speciation is trivial to demonstrate - polyploid speciation was demostrated experimentally over a century ago. Guettarda 14:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also please consider insertion in Speciation. LossIsNotMore 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution

Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution. I cite the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ken 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Ken, stop jumping from page to page trying to throw creationist quote mines around. That one is in fact such an old quote mine that it is even listed in the quote mine project here. Stop being disruptive. JoshuaZ 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ridley said what he said regarding the fossil record. What he says about other supposed evidences of evolution in no way invalidates what he said about the fossil record. ken 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Ridley did NOT say that "the fossil record does not support evolution". It certainly does. But it isn't needed to support evolution (almost all of it was discovered after Darwin published), as evolution can be deduced entirely from the other abundant evidence that Ridley mentioned. --Robert Stevens 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The alleged evolution of the horse

I think the supposed evolution of the horse is overblown and cites no opposing expert opinion. I cite the following: "Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where "evolution of the horse" diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153" [5] ken 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Enough out of context quotations. Since this quote is from Eldredge the original context is almost certainly discussing punctuated equilibrium. As usual you have used a second hand source and in this case not even bothered giving us what the original source was. It is getting very tiresome. JoshuaZ 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You failed to demonstrate your above contention. That is why you used the word "almost". Well almost is only good in horshoes and hand granades. ken 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
What would you prefer? How about this phrasing: childhood cliches aside, the probability that this quote is talking about puncutyated equilibrium is high enough that I would be more than willing to give you 20 to 1 odds. Together with the fact that you don't give the original citation but rather just an apologetics webpage this is a waste of time. JoshuaZ 19:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Consider this admission by Steven Stanley: "The horse ... the classic story of one genus fuming into another, … Now it's becoming apparent that there's an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one" (Bioscience, Dec. 1986).[6] ken 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Again a quote from an apologetics website this time with a multitude of ellipses. Nothing in that quote is at all at odds with what is stated here anyways. Horse evolution was complicated and it wasn't just a line of genera. Nothing in this article says otherwise. Instead of just repeated use of quotemines please come up with some substantial problem with the articles or go do something else. You are just wasting time. JoshuaZ 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Consider this regarding the alleged evolution of the horse: "A significant problem surfaced when Lou Sunderland observed (in Darwin's Enigma) that mounted specimens in the American Museum of Natural History showed an irregularity of rib pairs. Eohippus had 18 pairs, Orohippus had 15 pairs, Pliohippus jumped to 19 pairs, and the modern horse had 18. Some series!" [7] ken 21:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
This will be my last response since you are clearly just interested in apologetics and are simply going through apologetic statement after apologetic statement with no actual care for the articles. Modern horses don't have always the same number of ribs nor do humans. Nor for that matter is there any reason one would expect evolution to in general have the rib number go in a consistent direction. So this isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged vestigial organs

I think the POV/bias of this article can be shown quite readily in regards to the alleged vestigial organs. I cite the following: "The whole assumption is quite unscientific, and is based entirely on insufficient knowledge. These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs. S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.312[8] ken 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Oh please. See this. JoshuaZ 20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, see this refuting alleged vestigial organs ken 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Which is not surprisingly irrelevant to the point made by the TO article. Scadding didn't understand the difference between the coloquial (or medical) defintion of vestigial and the ev bio defintion among other issues. What AiG has to say about it is irrelevant since as the TO article discusses Scaddding later said he was wrong. JoshuaZ 20:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The alleged evidence from comparative embryology

I suggest readers examine this material if they want to know how weak the alleged evidence from comparative embryology is. ken 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Charming. You've given up with the quote mines and are now just citing apologetic websites as if they somehow meet WP:RS. Nor for that matter have you made any comment about how you think the section in the article should be modified. JoshuaZ 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope you are not saying that Haeckel did not use fraud in his arguments for comparative embyology allegedly supporting the macroevolutionary position. ken 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I could go on for hours about Haeckel and what he did and did not do. But it isn't relevant. You know why? Because this article doesn't talk about Haeckel at all. It talks about modern comparative embryology. Since science isn't a religion what one person did over a hundred years ago isn't that relevant. JoshuaZ 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The evolutionary community has been quite mindless in its pursuit of alleged evidence from comparative embryology. I cite the following regarding Haeckel's drawings: "Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission: …[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks! (p. 45, emphasis added) He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated, "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45)." [9] ken 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Which is all irrelevant. This doesn't discuss Haeckel's drawings but rather modern comparative embryology. This isn't that complicated. Read what I wrote above. Please. JoshuaZ 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
How is the recent propagandizing by the evolutionary community using Haeckel's drawings irrelevant? Now did Haeckel use fraud in his series of drawings? Yes or no? You never answered that question. I noticed. ken 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Ok, No Haeckel did not enage in fraud. He exxagerated some features in a combination that was wishful thinking and a deliberate attempt to point out the similarities such as removing the yoke sacs. This might be construed as fraud but could have been just general sloppiness. As I tried to explain before they aren't relevant because this article is not about "what have poorly written textbooks used as evidence for evolution" this article is about "evidence of evolution". The modern evidence based on embryology has nothing to do with Haeckel's drawings nor anything to do with whether or not Haeckel's drawins are in textbooks. JoshuaZ 21:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I cite the following: "Even Dr. Gould admitted that "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start" (p. 44).[10] Why is it that a prominent and ardent evolutionist like Stephen Gould can admit that Haeckel's work was fraudelent but you won't? ken 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Fine ok. Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent. So frak'n what? Whether Haeckel's issues were due to fraud or gross sloppiness has nothing to do with modern comparative embryology. JoshuaZ 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Haeckel's fraud was still widely used in recent biology textbooks as I demonstated. I think you have to admit now that a lot of mindless propagandizing goes on in the evolutionary community. When is this article going to cease being mindless propagandizing? ken 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Used in textbooks? Really? Care to provide any examples? Any recent textbooks? I trust that you aren't engaging in "mindless propagandizing" and parroting claims that were largely out of date years ago when Wells made them? Guettarda 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's end this. Haeckel's drawings were flawed and did not support the conclusions that he wanted to draw from them. Modern embryology does not depend in any degree on his drawings (as this article does not mention Haeckel or his flawed findings). The fact that some biology textbooks use his drawings is wrong and the publisher should be informed of the error. But the main point still stands. This article does not use any of Haeckel's findings, so ken's stubborn insistence on conspiracy and propaganda is unwarranted.--Roland Deschain 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ken does have a point but the conclusion we can draw from it is probably not what he wants. The whole point about the scientific method is that it fixes the gaps in knowledge whether they are as a result of insufficient inquiry or through misinterpreting the evidence. I don't want to sully the record of some guy who died over 90 years ago but according to Wikipedia ..."Haeckel did not support natural selection, rather believing in a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics (Darwin considered both of these paths for evolution viable).". Today you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist who would choose "Lamarckian..." as the evidence is with natural selection. He was thus betting a doomed hypothesis and in fact that there is a controversy at all just helps confirm modern evolution and natural selection (given incompatibility of the two methods). Thus though Haeckel is very relevant with other fields, in the area of Evolution and Natural Selection he is of less relevance. I don't see the controversy. Who cares about a 130 or so year old set of plates showing drawings of embryos when you simply look at embryos and genes of real animals using technology that was unavailable then. Any controversy that Haeckel has with modern evolution belongs on his page not the evolution page. Ttiotsw 22:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What an astounding exchange. Wow. one could do the same sort of examination and nitpicking to the bible or any other holy text and make it look pretttttty bad. One could sure do the same to Hovind or Gish and they would be torn to shreds. But that is not the point. As mentioned above, science has one fantastic feature; it is self-correcting, and it learns from past mistakes. Not good old creationism! It seems like it is a frantic desperate attempt to stay mired in the past and not give up former beliefs, no matter what. Not too different from why the RC Church did not pardon Galileo for his "crimes" and wrong beliefs for a few centuries. You know why the dinosaurs died out and the mammals survived to replace them after the K-T extinction? The mammals were able to adapt to the new conditions. Just like science is able to adapt to new data. Somehow, hidebound old creationism wants to keep dragging out the mustiest old material and call it scholarship, ideas that are 100 or 200 or 300 or more years out of date, and keep singing from the same old discredited songbook. And if anyone points it out to them, they scream that they are being persecuted and there is a conspiracy. My suspicion is that the reason these same ideas keep recycling and get mentioned over and over is that the average creationism proponent is not really that interested in thinking hard or scholarship or the truth, but just in browbeating.--ReasonIsBest 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Editors of this page may be interested in this RfC. JoshuaZ 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extent of the Fossil Record

While the article describes various reasons why paleontologists don't have as many fossils as they'd like to have, I think it's important to convey to evolution-skeptics some idea of the extent of the fossil record that we DO have. I often get the impression that many are entirely unaware of this, and think there might be just a handful of disputed "transitional fossils" supporting evolution: whereas there are actually many more of these than there are Bibles in the world! (A pity I couldn't point that out in the article...). I've added a paragraph on the extent of the fossil record: feel free to add any similar material that conveys the magnitude of what's out there. --Robert Stevens 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Stevens, more transitional fossils than Bibles in the world? I beg to differ and cite the scientist Niles Eldredge: "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95. [11]136.183.146.158 16:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It will always be possible to quote-mine scientists griping that they don't have as many fossils as they'd LIKE to have, but my statement remains correct. Eldredge, like Gould, is an advocate of "punctuated equilibrium": he's pointing out that fine changes between individual species is hard to find, but evidence for large-scale transitions is abundant. In the case of the reptile-mammal transition, "abundant" means "billions of fossils" in the rocks. --Robert Stevens 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's probably worth quoting Stephen J. Gould on precisely this sort of dishonesty: "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices... Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."" In other words, so-called microevolution (which creationists say they accept) is hard to spot, but macroevolution (which creationists deny, for entirely religious reasons) is easy to spot in the fossil record. --Robert Stevens 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It'd be nice if we could cite papers rather than websites for the paragraph you've added. If I have a chance, I'll try to trace them from the sites you've cited. I like the text you've added though. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd certainly appreciate a better citation for the "800 billion" estimate in the Beaufort Formation / Karoo Basin, as apparently Schadewald was repeating a claim he got from a creationist source. I have no particular reason to disbelieve it (as it's obviously problematic for their own worldview), but confirmation from a more reputable source would be highly desirable. Or a similar estimate for another large rock formation, by a reputable geologist/paleontologist. --Robert Stevens 14:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the citations are poor (peer review texts would be better) but we can upgrade them quite easily. If I get some spare time I'll do some fishing. --Davril2020 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I've taken the liberty of archiving the trolling to a subpage. I've kept the bits that did not seem like trolling. Adam Cuerden talk 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion pages are meant to discuss differences and not to have one sided discussion pages due to censorship. I believe it is flagrant censorship to try to put all the dissenters to the macroevolutionary position in some "trolling archive" Dissent is not trolling. 136.183.146.158 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, where can I see this subpage?

[edit] Non Creationist biology failed

I believe when one does a review of the scientific literature, one can see that non creationist biology failed. I think this should be incorporated in the article. 136.183.146.158 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you must have made a mistake with the link - you linked to some out-of-context quote mining, not a review of any scientific literature. Guettarda 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda, please don't merely assert the quotes were out of context. Please demonstrate it. I don't believe you can. 136.183.146.158 05:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The quotes are provides with no context on a wiki. They are, by definition out of context. Anyway, whether they are in context or out of context, you have linked to quote mining not a discussion of the literature. So, regardless of whether they are in context or out of context, the assertion that they are "a review of the scientific literature" is false. Guettarda 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the quotes are quite damning to the macroevolutionary position as can be readily seen. You will not be able to obscure this matter. 136.183.146.158 05:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying that they are not a discussion of the literature, as you claimed above?
As for the quotes themselves - lets see the Crick quote is a typical dishonest quote mine in which his statement is taken out of context to make it look like he is saying something other than he is actually saying. Standard dishonest deception. There is nothing in the Morris article to suggest that there is some "failure" in biology, so I have no idea what the point is to that quote. I'm not sure what a decade-old quote from Maynard Smith & Szathmary is supposed to say about challenges to modern biology. Johnson comments on the Crick quote, which is a misleading quote-mine. A twenty-year-old quote from Eldredge says nothing about modern biology. Ditto two 24-year-old quote from Thomson. There's nothing to obscure - the quotes don't say anything except that some creationists are dishonest...and that isn't news. Guettarda 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I still do not believe you will be able to obscure the fact that the quotes are quite damning to the macroevolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
To make it simple, there is nothing in that link about biology failing as you have stated. There must be some mistake. Meggar 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Biology didn't fail. Non creationists biology failed. 136.183.146.158 06:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because that link has Crick in it quoted out of context PLUS the essay by the arch-duke of Intelligent design himself, Phillip E. Johnson that rehashes Crick (an essay that I have already argued on the Crick wikipedia page as incompatible to Crick) really places that link in disrepute. Maynard Smith J. & Szathmary E simply consider the issue of proteins and .... acids a difficult problem. And difficult it is thus the the protein folding simulations use huge amounts of CPU - it is a pity that John Maynard Smith will miss the results of these various investigations. As for the other last three quotes - having such old dates and given their conversational nature - they pre-date a lot of work in genetics. This recent work would probably go a long way to answering these questions and raising more: thats the whole point of science; when you run out of hypothesis to answer then get out and find some more. The science in someone dies when there are no more problems for them to look at. Problems are goodTM is not a declaration of failure. No doubt the recent discovery of an unexpected level of variation in human DNA once investigated may help answer the question by K.S. Thomson of "And where would a large change in a phenotype or genotype come from? ". As for Thomson asking where would the stability in such a population I thought that was addressed by the game theory of Maynard Smith (ibid). Funny that how the shotgun approach of creationists ends up with a congruent answer from evolution. Nope this is a quote mine by wikipedia definition. Ttiotsw 07:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe you demonstrated that Crick was quoted out of context. Secondly, I don't believe you addressed this quote: "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11 136.183.146.158 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
OK we're all probably addressing this wrong: originally you said..."I believe when one does a review of the scientific literature, one can see that non creationist biology failed. I think this should be incorporated in the article. " those were your original words. Basically anyone has the right to edit an article. Be bold, go for it, you add it to the article but be careful of using quote mines as it is not what you believe is true but Wikipedia is what others believe is true. The others have to be notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article material and there must be a concensus on what gets included. Have fun. Ttiotsw 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Try reading it in context in Crick's autobiography. Johnson's use of the quote out of context is simply his typical dishonest spin. Crick is talking about how amazing it is that natural selection can give rise to things that appear designed. He is talking about the power of natural selection. As for the Morris quote - again, please read his paper...or even read the out-of-context quote you are using "which at first sight must seem rather odd" - ie, to people who haven't delved into the matter, it seems rather odd (but it make sense if you look deeper). Guettarda 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"There is a paradox in as much as sensible advances are usually only possible under a severely reductionist program, whereas questions basic to our understanding of evolution demand an encyclopedic knowledge of the science combined with an unprecedented skill in distillation and synthesis" - here's the explanation of what Morris was saying, from the second paragraph on page 1 (and, btw, the quote isn't on page 11 - there's nothing but lit. cited on page 11. It almost seems like you didn't read the paper you are quoting). Guettarda 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antibiotic resistent bacteria are not evidence for evolution

I believe the articles entitled Superbugs not super after all by Carl Wieland shows that antibiotic resistent bacteria are not good evidence for the macroevolutionary position. Also, the article entitled The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D. shows that antiobiotic resistence is not good evidence for the evolutionary position. I think the information in these articles should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article. 136.183.146.158 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wieland article has a section names "Natural selection, but not evolution" - what, pray tell, is natural selection supposed to do if it doesn't alter allele frequencies? The Criswell article says "In 1980 it was estimated that 3-5% of S. pneumoniae were penicillin-resistant and by 1998, 34% of the S. pneumoniae sampled were resistant to penicillin" - changes in allele frequencies = evolution. These articles actually present evidenc of evolution, not evidence against evolution, even though they dishonestly claim otherwise. Guettarda 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda, I don't believe you adequately addressed the creationists criticisms in the articles. 136.183.146.158 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What is there to address? The articles are systematically dishonest and deceptive. Why should we waste our time with deception? Guettarda 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe you demonstrated the articles are deceptive. 136.183.146.158 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe you should read what I wrote. The authors are bold-facedly lying. Lying is dishonest. Lying with the aim of misleading believers is clearly deception. Guettarda 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe it would be a lot more constructive if you focused on the creationist criticisms in the articles and did not throw out assertions you do not demonstrate. 136.183.146.158 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What criticisms? The "criticisms" are premised on false claims. There's nothing to address but lies. Guettarda 05:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The paper by Daniel Criswell is pseudoscience as it posits a designer in the first paragraph. Sorry but pseudoscience just doesn't carry much weight unless you are in Kansas or maybe, i don't know, Buffalo, NY. Is Daniel Criswell Phd notable ?. Ttiotsw 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of excellent scientists who affirm or affirmed there is a God. Please focus on other matters. 136.183.146.158 07:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is the belief in god relevant here ? You are not making sense. Positing a designer has been legally proven to be pseudoscience. I have said nothing about god. Please focus on the subject of what is included and not in articles and the concensus would probably be that non-notable pseudoscience is not acceptable material. Ttiotsw 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe we should discuss the science and not delve into particular legal cases. If you could focus on the scientific claims made in the articles it would be appreciated. 136.183.146.158 07:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Why spend the time ? The hypotheis presents a designer, designers are pseudoscience, ergo the hypothesis is pseudoscience. Immediately that happens then it gets stuck in our "crap filter" and truthfully none of us has the f*cking time to bother cleaning the science out of the surrounding crap. Give us a link that is to a paper that presents a similar position in a peer-reviewed science journal. Ttiotsw 08:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes because that is science by definition. You want to work in pseudoscience? Then you can allow the supernatural. But it is not science by any standard definition, and I have millions of scientists that agree with me, and the entire US legal system.--Filll 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Naturalism is the foundation of all science. If we assume the supernatural as a constant force unguided by laws, and completely unstudyable, then nothing could be studied because no laws could be postulated. Hardly pseudoscience, that! Adam Cuerden talk 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
A huge amount of data about the natural world can be explained without the supernatural. Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some math homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. Understand? All major professional scientific organizations do not include the supernatural in science. The US supreme court does not include the supernatural in its definition of science. The vast majority of scientists do not include the supernatural in their definitions of science. Commercial scientific laboratories do not rely on the supernatural to make products and money. No major peer-reviewed science journal would allow the publication of any article that included the supernatural. It has been like this for many decades; probably for well over a century or two or more, depending on the subfield of science. You can use Occam's Razor to sh*tcan ALL of science if you want and all of engineering too, but you will not get very far if you want RESULTS. But feel free.--Filll 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Science isn't "the process of searching for truth" - science is a way of asking questions that gradually refines hypotheses. Occam's razor does not favour creation in the case of homologies. It's far simpler to explain shared characters in 20 species in terms of shared ancestry than it is to explain shared characters via 20 separate creation events.
Common elements are present in all sorts of species - humans stand upright using a back that is "designed" for use by a quadruped - hence the prevalence of lower back pain. To say that common elements are evidence of divine design is to say that God is an incredibly incompetent designer. I prefer to believe in a competent God and living things designed by evolution, rather than an incompetent (or malicious) God. Obviously, that's just my opinion and you are free to believe in whatever sort of God you want. Guettarda 23:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It strikes me that Macguysoft is glad to tell us what God is thinking and doing, more than anyone else.--Filll 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


"You still haven't DEMONSTRATED why naturalism is true" - naturalism is scientific, supernaturalism is outside of what science can answer. We can't re-define things as we please. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Guettarda 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


He is having tantrum after tantrum, throwing insults around and reverting huge sections of the talk page (which is against WP policies and could get him blocked or banned). I never claimed "naturalism is true". The fact that you want this says you do not know what science is. So it is pointless.--Filll 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This quote cracks me up... Why would anyone have to demostrate that naturalism is true? Naturalism refers to the study of what is observable; are you trying to say that observable events don't happen? I don't quite get the claim being made. funny nonetheless.

[edit] Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed?

Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed? I believe the article entitled Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? by Dr. Jerry Bergman shows that homology is not evidence for the evolutionary position. I think this link should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article since homology is said to be evidence for the macroevolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You simply added the link. Does the wikipedia article have homology presented as evidence for the macroevolutionary position ? It has a very toned-down use as a diagram title i.e. "The principle of homology illustrated by the adaptive radiation of the forelimb of mammals." and that is it, thus the link is not relevant as the article doesn't present "...homology is said to be evidence for the macroevolutionary position." as you say it does. If you want to introduce some text in the article that says this so you can add your link then you can but obviously it should be well cited and from notable sources and neutral else it will be ruthlessly edited (as anything on Wikipedia can be). As a standalone link it is WP:OR on your part. Ttiotsw 08:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is discussion page rudely being censored?

The discussion pages are meant to discuss differences and not to have one sided discussion pages due to censorship. I believe it is flagrant censorship to try to put all the dissenters to the macroevolutionary position in some "trolling archive" 136.183.146.158 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving is not censorship: archiving is a legitimate method of controlling talk pages. Firstly please create an account and use that. Unless you are on a static IP then if you have a DHCP allocated IP address then when that lease is renewed you will appear on a different IP. This makes having a discussion longer than the IP lease time or your dial-up time harder as we have to correlate a discussion over multiple IP addresses. This is partly why a sudden outburst of comments especially which revisit old subjects or attempt to dramatically edit stable articles are deemed trolling' and/or would get archived. Ttiotsw 07:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Labeling dissent as trolling and burying it in a archive called "trolling archive " is censorship. It is rude and I will not stand for it. 136.183.146.158 07:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
136.183.146.158, do you have an account on wiki that you forgot to log in to? *Spark* 14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Shall we rename it to a more neutral term? Adam Cuerden talk 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, I see no reason for archiving certain sections because of their dissent nature. It is extremely common for talk pages to have dissenting views to the articles they are related to. 136.183.146.158 03:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You know 136, it would be nice of you to log in and sign your posts.--Filll 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No need. I think you can guess who he is. *Spark* 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to OP: Please understand that this talk page is made for improving the article, not challenging the validity of macroevolution (which by the way is a completely artificial and false term, but I digress.) If you believe that a part of the article is a breach of NPOV, say so. If, however, you're here to bitch because you disagree with evolution, just go away. 66.91.94.57 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested

I'm in need for a short 2-3 paragraph summary of all the evidences of evolution, to fix the POV of a strongly creationism-biased article. Can anyone help? Adam Cuerden talk 22:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the supernatural can not be part of science

Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some math homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. --Filll 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maths isn't a science according to Jeffrey Shallit who when asked to present an expert opinion on Dembski's work as a scientist or on Dembski's maths at [12] on page 2 footnote 1 says "I do not consider mathematics to be science.". Though the sentiment of what you say works for other processes in which proposing a supernatural being is an intellectually weak solution to the problem. Ttiotsw 08:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Mathematics is not a science, although some mathematicians would disagree. I am just trying to make a point. One can solve any problem in science or technology by just invoking a supernatural intervention at any arbitrary place. And then to insist that this solution that includes the supernatural intervention is unassailable, by definition, is not science. It is not mathematics either. Or many other rational disciplines. I included the math example just to make things clear and illuminate the situation. I could come up with better examples however. Maybe make it a physics calculation.--Filll 16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:204.117.123.38

Doesn't this guy qualify under the 3RR rule soon. How about a permanent ban from vandalizing all the pages that he/she/it does.Orangemarlin 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If he violates 3RR, please report him at WP:AN3, and he will be blocked. A "ban" - do you mean indefblocked account? As he's an IP, that won't happen. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh sheesh, that was straight vandalism. Blocked. Next time, post warnings on his talk page, and report at WP:AIV. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Got it. What's the link to a list of all the criminal acts that can reported on Wikipedia. And I got to tell you I hope it's easier than reporting a sock puppet, because I was worn out after that experience!!!!Orangemarlin 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Um... ask me? Seriously. If I'm not in, then any Admin. Read the WP:RULES, there are links beyond links to reporting malfeasance. And don't worry - it seems overwhelming at first but before you know it you'll be talking like and Old-Timer (mostly Wiki-specific acronyms: see WP:OMG.) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Developmental biology

This could do with the example of the eye gene [13]. Also there seems to be no mention of the common genetic code.Shyamal 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haeckel's embryological drawings

While not as awful as some claim, they are known to be exaggerated, and we're just asking for problems by including them. Can't we use another image? Adam Cuerden talk 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Removed. This article deals with 21st-century evolutionary biology, not 19th-century evolutionary biology. -Silence 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed incoherent rant

to the page of User:Superman151.--Filll 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This article has multiple important claims that aren't cited, such as:
"Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant." What comparisons?
"Fossil evidence supports the theory that organisms tend to progressively increase in complexity." What evidence?
"Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock." Proof, please!
I think we should add a "this article does not cite its sources" tag. Gert2 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gert2 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

These things are so commonly known in biology that sources at that level are rarely used. It's like saying water freezes at 0 C. But sure, we can find some sources, more like 10,000 sources, but we'll get some good ones. Orangemarlin 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, no it's not. People disagree with this stuff, so it shouldn't be passed off as obvious. Should a tag be added, or what? Gert2 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. That evolution is progressive is not without controversy I think? In any case, if the claims are to obvious and well known, it should be a piece of cake to cite them. Sander123 09:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The first and third claims are "common knowledge", but "Fossil evidence supports the theory that organisms tend to progressively increase in complexity" is context dependent - true if you look at life broadly (from unicellular to...) but not so certain if you look at things on a more recent time scale, I think. Guettarda 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect classification

I can't find any reference in this article to perfect classification -the fact that species can be put into groups within groups with no anomalies at all. For example, a feathered, milk producing bat that laid eggs would not fit neatly into either birds or mammals, but no such creature exists or has ever existed. The only plausible way perfect classification could have happened is by descent from common ancestors. Have I missed it? If not, it should go in. Man with two legs 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This depends what you mean by "perfect". If your claim were true, there would be no ambiguity in the reconstruction of phylogenetic trees; yet, relatively large debates still remain. Regarding bats, for example, there's some debate as to whether bats are monophyletic. If a "perfect classification" exists, it's only in the world of theory. The real world isn't so neat. Graft 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There are no anomalies and no ambiguities, there are only cases species where we have not yet found out into which of some very similar groups they go. The perfect classification of species is the only case I can think of where the real world is entirely so neat. I didn't make this up, by the way. I have come across it in more than one book and I seem to remember that it is in either 'The Selfish Gene' or 'The Blind Watchmaker' (it's a few years since I read them). Man with two legs 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. There are indeed ambiguities. There was a very long debate over (still extant, maybe) over how Xenarthra fall into the mammalian tree (that is, are we more distantly related to elephants or to armadillos?). If that's not an ambiguity, I don't know what is. Graft 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure: are we referring to general classification ambiguities, such as finding the correct placement of Xenarthra within the placental mammal phylogeny, or weird, earthshaking ambiguities, such as the appearance of an egg-laying bat, that would negate evolutionary biology as we currently know it?--Mr Fink 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There's all sorts of weird general "earthshaking" ambiguities (e.g. this) that are unremarked upon because the finer detail is better understood. That is, if we DID find an egg-laying bat, it probably wouldn't stir us too much because we could identify how it got that way via comparison to other bats. Anyway, if the point is that classification is absolutely clear and unambiguous (which I take "perfect" to mean), i don't think real life bears that out right now. Graft 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You still don't get it, (unlike Mr Fink): the examples you give will eventually be fitted into a classification scheme with no anomalies unlike the books on your shelf which cannot be classified into neat categories. The egg laying bat, which does not fit, does not exist. In contrast however you attempt to classify your library there are many books out there that will not fit neatly into your scheme. The same applies to nearly everything you attempt to place in groups within groups except living things which naturally fall into groups with other living things that have common ancestors. Man with two legs 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The nested hierarchy?--Mr Fink 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Argh. YOU still don't get it. You cannot say they will "eventually" be classified into neat categories and then call that evidence of perfect (existing) categorization. That is just the mark of your faith. The fact is, ambiguities exist. They will probably ALWAYS exist. That is the nature of science. It is always imperfect because it always works at the boundaries of knowledge. "Perfect" categorization does not exist. Graft 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there is no reason to suspect that remaining minor mysteries will not be solved. If life had not evolved from common ancestors, you would expect glaring examples of life forms that don't fit the pattern. The example of convergent evolution you referenced above does not break the pattern. Nothing has ever been observed that clearly breaks the pattern. The only plausible explanation is descent from common ancestors, hence the fact that Linnean classification works so well becomes evidence of evolution. This is not a new idea, nor a controversial one (unless you are determined to find it controversial). If you still can't understand it, then there are probably people at your university who can explain it to you, but I suspect they might have to use violence to get through to you. Man with two legs 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't go heaving the mammoth bones again. The museum is mad enough as it is now.--Mr Fink 19:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What? Man with two legs 09:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It's from an old poem about how these two paleontologists got into a huge argument that wound up with them being crushed to death by the fossils they were throwing at each other.--Mr Fink 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Man with two legs 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, look, all I'm saying is, there's a difference between saying "classification is perfect", and "classification is so damn good there's almost no chance it's wrong, and these little wrinkles will almost definitely be ironed out and not bring the whole thing crashing down." The latter, I would agree with, as it seems would you. But I don't see how you can call that "perfect classification". Graft 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That is probably not far off how it should be phrased in the article. Man with two legs 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that convergence and back-mutations are not going to be serious is too strong an assumption. At present the turtles are hard to place in a phylogeny; they spoil the perfection. Since I'm willing to go by overall weight of the evidence, the failure to place turtles correctly doesn't upset my confidence in evolution. (I don't assume or require a perfect classification). Your prediction implies that the turtles will one day be resolved, but you have to actually do that, you can't just suppose it. EdJohnston 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There are two reasons for "imperfect" phylogenies. One is methodological. If A mutates to B and then back to A, it can spoil your phylogeny. You end up with conflicting results based on different genes (or more commonly, non-coding regions like the non-transcribed ITS spacer). Generally phylogenies are constructed statistically - you select the one out of your thousands of possibly phylogenies that is most parsimonious overall (or you select one of your most parsimonious phylogenies). But there's a different thing that can spoil your phylogenies, and that is things like hybrid origins and reticulate evolution[14]. It is possible for some genes to accurately suggest that an individuals are more closely related to individuals of a different species than they are to individuals of their own species. This is especially true when you use things like plasmid or mitochondrial DNA. In cases like this, there is no "perfect" phylogeny because different genes will give different phylogenies, and they can all be true. Guettarda 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
So this subject is more muddy than I had supposed, though presumably the really messy bits never apply to animals because they don't hybridise except with close relatives. I can't remember where I got the phrase "perfect classification" from, but I think it was from Dawkins. Perhaps there is another way of phrasing the same idea that is in vogue. Either way, it is still a valid thing to include in this article. Any thoughts and citations?
I also seem to remember reading that taxonomy is a subject that raises strong emotions. I am beginning to see why. Man with two legs 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please track down the source before proposing that it's a good addition to the article. Convergence and back-mutation are still a problem even if there is no hybridization. There are many ways to lose perfection; don't take it to the bank just yet. EdJohnston 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Evidence of common descent, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been some discussion on Evolution of how strange this name of this article sounds (about as strange as an article called, say, Evidence of gravity); its corresponding section in Evolution will probably soon be replaced by something more coherent. The problem is that just about everything in biology can be considered "evidence of evolution", in one way or another; what this article actually mainly concerns itself with is evidence for common descent, so I strongly suggest that this article's title be changed: move it to Evidence for common descent or Evidence of common descent. This will immediately eliminate any ambiguities and make the article much more useful and clear, by not implying that things like fossils are needed to provide support for the very basic and obvious occurrence of evolution, i.e., changes in a population's genetic composition over successive generations—which is different from what this article largely discusses, evolutionary history under common descent. -Silence 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Evidence of common descent is a better name for this article. Evidence for common descent would suggest the need for the article Evidence against common descent. WAS 4.250 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Evidence of common descent works best here. -Silence 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent observation. The proposed title gives clarity to the scope of the article. Dekimasuよ! 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with it, provided that the phrase "Evidence of evolution" still redirects to it. When people seek "evidence of evolution", they're typically looking for evidence that evolution has happened in the past, or evidence showing how evolution has unfolded in the past: they're generally looking for evidence of common descent. If a separate "Evidence of Evolution" page is subsequently created (i.e. evidence of mutation, natural selection etc), the redirect can be cancelled and some sort of explanatory paragraph added. --Robert Stevens 11:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with Robert's reasoning on maintaining the redirect. I think unfortnately that "evolution" is a bit of POV-firestorm and the opportunity to avoid using in place of a more specific and neutral title is a good one. 205.157.110.11 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great idea. Let's do it! Orangemarlin 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Silence. Joeldl 06:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Mutations do not result in evolutionary change!

Mutations are changes in genes that already exist. Mutations produce only alleles, which means they can produce only variation within kind, not change from one kind to others. To make evolution happen—or even to make evolution a scientific theory—evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer” to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors” that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all.

Also, mutations are "heading the wrong way" as far as evolutions is concerned. Mutations don’t create; they corrupt. Rather than adding information, mutations destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes). To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned. --Lossenhilien 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. Hesperian 06:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did. --Lossenhilien 07:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lossenhilien, you are mistaken. All living organisms belong to the same "kind" (that is what all the evidence indicates), and all mutations "increase information" by increasing the total number of alleles in the gene pool (unless, of course, a specific mutation happens to duplicate an existing allele). Mutations can also increase the total size of an organism's genome (by duplicating a chunk of it). Natural selection is the process which ensures that, over time, harmful mutations are eliminated from the population and beneficial ones prevail: the result is an inevitable, inexorable accumulation of beneficial alleles (until the organism is well-suited for its niche). Also, as evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles in a population, mutations that are retained cause "evolutionary change" by definition. --Robert Stevens 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than adding information, mutations destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).

Mutations are harmful at least 1000 times more often than they are helpful. No evolutionist believes that standing in front of X-ray machines would eventually improve human beings. No evolutionist argues that destruction of the earth’s ozone layer is good because it increases mutation rates and, therefore, speeds up evolution. Evolutionists know that decrease in the ozone layer will increase mutation rates, but they, like everyone else, recognise that this will lead only to increased skin cancer and to other harmful changes. Perhaps a helpful change might occur, but it would be drowned in the sea of harmful changes. To explain evolution by the gradual selection of beneficial mutations, one must also put up with the millions of harmful mutations that would have to occur along the way.

How can you rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information?

--Lossenhilien 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You have just answered your own question there: "Mutations are harmful at least 1000 times more often than they are helpful". That's all it takes: one mutation in 1000 being helpful. Natural selection filters out the 999 bad ones and propagates the one helpful one. You have just admitted that mutations can create information. That's why there's a lot of advanced statistical mathematics in advanced Evolutionary Biology courses, which describes exactly how this happens. --Robert Stevens 09:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You also fail to appreciate the differences between carcinogenic mutations, and mutations in gametocytes, the former causing cancer, while the latter furthers evolution. You also refuse to read about the documented histories of various mutations, too, such as the persistence of sickle-cell anemia, or the history of the "antifreeze gene" in Antarctic icefish.--Mr Fink 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sickle-cell anemia may have an abstract benefit, but the cost is high: 25% of the children of carriers can die of sickle-cell anemia, and another 25% are subject to malaria. If you want to call that a good mutation, you’re welcome to it! It seems doubtful to me that real improvement of human beings would result from accumulating that kind of “beneficial” mutant, and certainly hemoglobin’s ability to carry oxygen was not improved. Furthermore, when the frequency of the sickle-cell gene reaches 18%, natural selection for it “stops.” That’s the point at which the death rates from sickle-cell anemia and malaria balance, demonstrating conclusively that sickle-cell anemia is not a suitable model for the continuous genetic expansion that evolutionists seek.

Robert Stevens, to me, mathematics poses a serious challenge for you.

Mutations occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule (107). That’s fairly rare. On the other hand, it’s not that rare. Our bodies contain nearly 100 trillion cells (1014). So the odds are quite good that we have a couple of cells with a mutated form of almost any gene. A test tube can hold millions of bacteria, so, again, the odds are quite good that there will be mutant forms among them.

The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That’s a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That’s a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn’t big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations.

What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn’t big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we’re talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to even change a fish into a frog. Four mutations don’t even make a start toward any real evolution.

--Lossenhilien 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do realize that your use of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" does not impress me. The use of ridiculously large numbers to prove something can't happen when it is already happening all the time is quite silly in my opinion. The fact that an organism's genome is several trillion base-pairs long defeats the purpose of dissuading someone by saying that it's a one in one trillion chance for a mutation to occur. Sickle cell anemia causes the red blood cell to become malformed. The benefit of this is that Plasmodium can not inhabit these deformed cells, and heterozygous carriers have enough healthy red blood cells to survive and live relatively normal lives, hence the selection for this particular heterozygote. The chances of winning the California state lottery is greater than being struck by lightning twice, but does that mean no one can ever win the lottery? Perhaps if you actually read stuff, rather than pull giant numbers out of your pants' pocket to dazzle us with, you'd realize that a) frogs and their relatives did not evolve from fish, but from temnospondyl amphibians sometime during the Permian, around the same time flies split from scorpion flies, b)speaking of flies, maybe if you read more, you would have heard that the Apple Maggot Fly is undergoing a speciation event, and c) mutations occur in bacteria at a frightening pace, and the documentation, including immunities to new antibiotics like Vancomycin, and the appearance of new enzymes such as Nylonase, that can attack synthetic plastics.--Mr Fink 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, can you explain to us how using numerical boogeymen to frighten us into changing our minds negates the documented appearance, existence, and persistence of numerous strains of bacteria that resist both naturally occurring and synthetic antibiotics? --Mr Fink 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Lossenhilien, your math is weak. The mutations do not happen in consecutive sequence, harmful mutations occur at the same frequency and are selected out, genetic recombination via sex "spreads' the beneficial mutations much more quickly, and over several billion years, and who knows how many generations, even your numbers are pretty huge. This is an old canard thrown out by creationists which has been refuted so many times, that it's only marginally worth a response. Orangemarlin 04:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Your numbers maybe correct ("the mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally 10-4 to 10-6 ... per generation per gene" (emphasis added) suggests otherwhise, and even that number is apparently disputed for being to low), but your math is flawed. Take a model population of as little as 10,000 adult individuals, each spawning three offspring per generation. I don't know how many duplications take place in the germ-line from one generation to the next , but assume it's around 3000. I assume that you also meant your mutation rate per gene, but let's assume your figure is meant to represent mutations with an effect per the entire genome (excluding mutations that do not alter the proteins they code for enough to change their functionality, or such in non-coding areas). Makes 30,000x300 relevant duplications or ~100.000,000 per generation. That gives us, using your figures, 10 mutants per generation, or one beneficient mutant per 100 generations (the "bad" ones are sorted out by selection, a process you don't seem to dispute). Assume further that a new mutation takes 50-100 generations to become dominant in the population (which does not require an outlandishly high selective advantage), which gives one innovation time to propagate by the time the next one is likely to occur. Assume further that a complex trait requires 1000 independent mutations, and scale the generation at ten years (which is long even for most large vertebrates). Gives you a tiny litte 1.000,000 years - with rather pessimistic input variables. The product of the seperate probabilities is irrelevant as one of the central claims of evolutionary theory is the existence of a succession of helpful intermediates, so the co-occurence of any two mutations in one individual is not required or even expected. Nobody would reasonably expect intermediate fossiles with a population of only 10,000 over such a geologically short timespan.
By the way: The "mutations cannot add information" is, if anything, relevant only to point mutations, where one pair of bases is replaced by the other. Certainly not to gene duplications. Seeing that within one species different genes, with different functions, often have very similar basic structures, its importance should be obvious. I am ignoring many complexities, but not even close to how many you are happily ignoring.213.47.123.225 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New fossil finds challenge story of human evolution

This has been published in Nature [15] and should perhaps be considered. --Childhood's End 12:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not here though - this article doesn't deal with specific details of human evolutionary history. There are other articles such as Timeline of human evolution and Human history where this paper might be more interesting. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a good explanation here about why the general media hubub about this is overblown. JoshuaZ 13:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good info, thanks. The new study sill has something new to add though, but perhaps more relevant to the other articles suggested by Plumbago. --Childhood's End 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this page even exist?

If you ask me, this page and an 'evidence against common descent/evolution/what have you' has absolutely no place on wikipedia.

A page like this is just about as ridiculous as Evidence of gravity or Evidence of a round earth or Evidence of the earth revolving around the sun pages.

Evolution is, at this point, pretty much a scientific fact in countries where people do not have, pardon my language, their heads up their collectively religious asses.

Just as the above ridiculous pages would have only the single lines 'When you drop stuff that isn't lighter than air, it generally falls', 'when you start moving into a single direction that isn't up, you generally end up in pretty much the same spot' and 'when you observe the solar system from outside the atmosphere, you can generally see the earth shifting position relative to the sun' respectively, so should this page have only the single line 'when you compare fossil records of millions and billions of years ago to the species that exist now, you can generally see that species from that time are different from species of this time, but they have traits in common that strongly suggest that species today descended from species then.'

Creating a whole page to support Evolution is just a way of catering to the Creationists, by suggesting that Evolution NEEDS a list of proof for it to be taken seriously. Robrecht 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the strong points of Wikipedia is that it covers ongoing controversies. When there is a controversy among the general public about a science topic on which there is already a scientific consensus, then it is appropriate to explain why there is a scientific consensus on the topic. For a somewhat parallel case see Global warming and Scientific opinion on climate change. Of course the cases are not exactly parallel since the scientific consensus on climate change is much more recent than the one on common descent but I think you can see the point. Like it or not there is a an ongoing evolution vs creation controversy in the media of a number of countries (most prominently the US but also recently Turkey, Australia, Kenya, and Canada). Therefore it is important for Wikipedia to cover it, and especially to cover the scientific evidence. I think this article does a reasonably good job of that although I think the section on geographical distribution could use some work. Rusty Cashman 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Even without the canned controversy, even without creationists of any sort, there'd still be a place for this article as part of the evolution series. It's important for anyone wishing to learn about evolution to understand the evidence upon which it's based, and there's simply too damn much of it to fit neatly into the main article, without losing important detail. ornis (t) 12:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good to have pages like this, and even would be good to have pages or sections of articles on the topics you suggested were "ridiculous". --Filll 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem from move; propose retroactive split

I support the move from Evidence of evolution to Evidence of common descent. However there is now a huge problem: While all evidence of common descent is evidence of evolution, not all evidence of evolution is direct evidence of common descent. There are now several sections in this article that are not completely accurately described by its title; in fact, most of it isn't.

While all evidence of evolution can be used as indirect evidence of common descent, very little of it apart from molecular biochemistry serves as direct evidence.

Can this problem can be corrected by splitting the two articles, and putting everything not directly supporting common descent under the old article's title? Of course the distinction should be made clear with ample cross-linking in the lead sections of both, if that were to happen. 1of3 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive appearance of forms of life

Assuming fossils are real (and not placed by a "trickster god"), then they show definitively that various forms of life have appeared over millions of years.

Is this record of progressive of appearance to be considered evidence which support the theory of common descent? If so, which scientists think this way? And who (within the scientific community or outside of it) disagree? --Uncle Ed 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance AGAIN

this section is a little weak. the anti-evolution argument seems to be that though antibiotics select resistant bacteria, those resistant bacteria have always been there in small numbers, rather than them emerging due to the mutation/selection process. it would be nice to see evidence to the contrary. does anyone have any? --Mongreilf (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How about examples of organisms that gain resistance to synthetic drugs? This article describes the isolation of Shigella strains in Japan with resistance to the synthetic antibiotic sulfonamide. Is this applicable? -EarthRise33 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes and the development of nylon-eating bacteria is another similar example of a micro-organism adapting to a totally novel substance, which is hard to make sense of without the creation of new information in the genome through mutation.Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I updated the article to refer to Shigella evolution. But inclusion of the evolution of nylonase would be a splendid addition, provided a place can be found for it. -EarthRise33 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fossil records (sorry, had to bring it up)

Could someone actulaly show some pictures of missing links. Otherwise its a rather weak section. I'm not trying to cause a fire-fight, just making a suggestion. Saksjn (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we won't have pictures of the missing ones, obviously... however, I've added a picture of a non-missing one, a reptile/mammal transition. --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Saksjn (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the term "missing links" was poorly used. I'll settle with "links." Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Found the picture... how is this a link? All it is, is a reptilian mammal. It in know way documents a change from one species to another. The picture isn't even a fossil... anyone can draw a picture. Please give a real fossil pic. Saksjn (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "missing link" is popular, but gives a misleading impression of the old religious great chain of being. In the article it was a piped link to Transitional fossil, which is a more scientific term and I've rephrased it to make that clearer. There are of course many transitional fossils found that help to clarify developments, as with Tiktaalik, but never enough to satisfy creationists who prefer species to poof into existence. .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, what happens is that creationists claim there is no transitional fossil between species 1 and 2. When transitional fossil 1.5 between 1 and 2 appears, then the creationists claim there is no transitional fossil between 1 and 1.5 and 1.5 and 2. When transitional fossils 1.25 and 1.75 appear, now the creationists claim that four transitional fossils are missing: a transitional fossil between 1 and 1.25, another between 1.25 and 1.5, another between 1.5 and 1.75 and another between 1.75 and 2. Clearly, the more transitional fossils that are found, the more transitional fossils creationists claim are missing, so this is a losing battle. Duane Gish in particular has been good at playing this game. It is literally impossible to find all the transitional fossils or "missing links". It will never ever be done.--Filll (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a 4+ links in a chain, just asking to see a pic of a fossilized specie between two species. All the article has now is two images that are unrelated to each other. In fact, one of them isn't even a fossil, it's just a painting. Thanks for the transitional fossil tidbit, I'm now a little more educated. Saksjn (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a summary article (it summerized information from more detailed articles), if you want detailed examples look at List of transitional fossils, although most of the pictures there are artists reconstructions you can usually find the pictures of the actual fossils from the links. IMHO this article should have a direct link to that one (which is one of the most useful related to this topic on Wikipedia). I don't fully understand your complaint however. The illustration of horse evolution in the next section shows some striking transistions.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn, you won't find a transitional "between two species", because that's not how evolution works. "Species" is a man-made category: certain specimens in species A may become more and more like species B until a paleontologist says "OK, we'll call this one species B". And any fossil "between two similar species" isn't going to show much to the untrained eye (and creationists will respond that it's part of the same "kind" anyhow). Whereas the cynognathus is precisely the sort of creature that would not exist if creationism were true: a transitional betwen two very distinct groups of creatures (reptiles and mammals). I could also have used reptile/bird, fish/reptile etc. Such creatures appear in the fossil record in the strata in which they should appear: before the creatures that are descended from them (you won't find modern mammals in the Permian, for instance). Also, a photograph of a fossil doesn't show the critter's characteristics as clearly as a picture does: these pictures are created by experts who can study the fossil directly, from all angles, and compare it with a whole range of similar fossils. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't we use pictures of both fossils and illustrations? Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response. Saksjn (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually have any pictures of Cynognathus fossils: but, if I did, it would probably be better to put them on the Cynognathus page (which is linked in the illustration). This article is, after all, merely an overview: it can't possibly contain all the relevant evidence. Also, as I pointed out earlier, the picture is based on evidence from many fossils: which ones should we include? The Cynognathus article says that "The genus Cynognathus had an almost worldwide distribution. Fossils have so far been recovered from South Africa, South America, China and Antarctica"... and lists 15 different names given to the species Cynognathus crateronotus over the years. So we're obviously talking about a large number of actual fossils here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or is it simply because there is not enough relevant evidence? Saksjn (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're accusing scientists of lying? Purely because this would suit your religious views? But if those evilutionists can lie about that, then surely they could fake any number of pictures of fossils... so no quantity of fossil pictures could refute anyone sufficiently determined to believe that no such fossils exist. Ultimately we need to address people who are willing to learn: not those who don't want to (for whatever reason). --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, while agreeing with everything Rober Stevens just said, I am going to risk some troll feeding here and just point out the obvious fact that the problem is not with the evidence but rather with the paucity of fossil photos in the public domain (and therefore available for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. A seach for cynodont on Google image yielded the following sites: [16], and [17] that have drawings of actual fossils showing transitions in the mammal like reptiles. The search also showed numerous photos and even some CT scans of actual fossils. Plenty of evidence, but unfortunately all copyrighted and therefore out of bounds for purposes of Wikipedia. What we really need is more poeople who work with fossil collections to upload photos to Wikicommons. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, it might be worth asking one of the authors of those papers if they have any images they'd be willing to donate. Would you like to give it a try? Graft | talk 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence from genetics

Since others have noted the lack, I drafted a section on "evidence from genetics", which is here. I would greatly appreciate if others could help whip it into shape - obviously it needs references; it could also use a nice figure of a some phylogenetic tree reconstructions. And the final bit about Hox gene evolution, with which I am embarassingly unfamiliar, definitely needs some attention. Graft | talk 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phylogeny figure

Yo,

I'd like to include a figure similar to (maybe identical to) Fig. 1 from this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/290/5493/972 However, that one is copyrighted by Science, and I'm assuming we can't just replicate it in Inkscape and still be legit. Can anyone suggest some good options? Graft | talk 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ERVs aren't mentioned

I noticed that ERVs aren't mentioned here. Why is that? 67.233.131.253 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)