How does biochemical evidence support evolution?
373493
1. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.\n\nThe main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.\n\nGenetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?\n\nAlso, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.\n\n2. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.\n\nThe point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.\n\n3. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).\n\nThese are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.\n\nThere are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."
204527
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nAnd, for those who say that evolution does not occur:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from
256655
We evolved from primates, but not monkeys specifically.  We did not evolve from birds although we do share a common ancestor with them a long ways back.  Although evolution has not been conclusively "proven" it is supported by a preponderance of evidence and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.  And hutsong's "evidence" against evolution is primarily fictitious.  Don't be fooled by his authoritative manner - he's still full of crap.\n\nFor a defense of evolution see my answer to this question:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiUBrphbhCO3D7mQOX5JXrrsy6IX?qid=1006032117223\n\nAnd these links:\nhttp://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml\nhttp://fermat.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html\n\nOr go to your local library and find an introductory biology book.
291260
Adaptation? Evolution?
632
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
765050
"Evolution operates on several assumptions, the first being that there is no other way to explain how life got here without a god, so it must be true by default. "\n\nAbsolutely wrong.\n\n"Many people just say that the fossil record proves evolution, but they don't realize that it doesn't actually represent intermediates between two species but dead branches that became extinct."\n\nThe fossil record shows transitional forms, the kind that the theory of evoltuion predicts should have existed.\n\n"Modern humans did not evolve from neanderthals since they sometimes lived at the same time and place as other early humans, like you might see depicted in some drawings."\n\nTrue, but modern humans did evolve from a earlier primate ancestor that wasn't human.  Neanderthals are more like our cousins.\n\n"If changes can happen within species by chance, like different strains of bacteria, it also does not logically follow with absolute certainty that a single-celled organism can over millions of years evolve into more complex organisms and later evolve into a bird or a human. "\n\nBut the metabolic similarities, the universality of the genetic code, the fact that mitochrondria are in fact desceneded from bacteria, these are all best expained by common descent.\n\n"Not to say that it's wrong, but you can't prove something by inductive reasoning alone."\n\nEvolution is proved by the evidence.\n\nThe below links contain more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable person.
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
508160
Well, it's actually a lot more "great's" than that.  The first single-celled organism has had a *lot* of time to evolve into us.  And that doesn't rule out the existence of God any more than gravity does.\n\nHere's my counter-question:  what sort of evidence would you accept as proof that we evolved from a single-celled organism?\n\nThere's a lot of evidence -- but what would it take to convince you?
528044
It does not matter what I believe. The theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by fact and argument. Intelligent Design is not supported by any facts that I know of and the argument seems to be basically, " a argument from ignorance ".
216155
I myself beleive in evolution, I despise the theory of Intelligent Design and I laugh at creationism however I also believe that everyone has a right to their opinion so here are some of the "proofs" you are looking for. \n\nScience Itself Refutes Darwinism \n   \n• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti6\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.51\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.51\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 196663\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."50\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.51\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:  \n  • Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n  • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n  • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.51 \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.51 \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.51\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.6\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\n\n• Living "Fossils"\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\n\n• "Missing Links"\n\n• There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.   Angler Fish Chicken Egg \n  Beaver Giraffe \n  Black And Yellow Garden Spider Incubator Bird \n  Bombardier Beetle
1011281
There is really not enough evidence to support evolution. Actually evolution is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory (hypothesis). There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:\n\n* Cells and DNA\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of researc
483713
I wouldn't say that I'm anymore intelligent than someone else, but I did want to answer your question, so....\n\nYou are confusing the theory of evolution (diversification of species) with the theory of abiogenesis (life from natural compounds).  That's okay, many people confuse the two.\n\n1.  How did life get from soup to single-celled organisms?  From wikipedia, "J.B.S Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed.\nIn 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks organic amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, had formed. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life; they demonstrated that a more complex molecule — the amino-acids — could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals, in the presence of an external energy source in an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen (the experiment involved shooting a spark, representing lightning, into their flask of supposedly primitive earth-gases)."\n\n2.  How did the original cell eat and develop asexual reproduction?   You are putting the cart before the horse.  In order to get to the cell stage, self-replicating molecules had to exist first... i.e. reproduction & "nourishment"  was occurring well before the cell stage.  Also, what are you referring to with "nourishment"?  For a self-replicating molecule, nourishment would consist of other molecules that it could combine with to form more of itself.\n\n3.  In the "soup", how did primordial cells develop resistences?  Resistence to what?  I don't understand this question.  To the environment?  To viruses or bacteria?  You need to elaborate here, I'm sorry.  I think it ties into your next answer, but not sure.  Please read my answer to #4.\n\n4.  How did it evolve everything it needed if it wasn't in it's DNA?  Can you give an example?  Hmm.  I'm trying to understand how you are approaching this question.  Let's say you have 100 little cells, each a little different.  5 cells can withstand a higher water temperature than the others because of a mutation they have.  One day the temperature goes up and kills off the other 95 cells.  That only leaves the 5 with the mutation.  They scamper off and reproduce like crazy... the cell strain has just evolved a little.  Now repeat this a gazillion times with a dynamic interacting environment and there you go.
168123
Physical evidence? As in the sort of evidence that shows evolution is true (fossils, modern animal morphology, distribution of modern animals, DNA, etc.)\n\nNone.\n\nBut, if people want to believe in a god. Or two. Or several. They have that right. And the vast majority of people who do believe do not need the sort of scientific proof to be certain they are right.\n\n\n(And just a comment above, the world and life are very much NOT put together perfectly. Just for starters most of the DNA we have is not good for anything, only a small amount is for genes. This makes sense from the pov of evolution, but not from a instant creation. Unless god is sloppy.)
706964
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
53092
There are no good arguments against evolution.  Punnett pundit is right.  The best hope anti-evolutionists have is to crud up the debate with straw men.\n\nTake, for example, the BS above about blue eyes.  Evolution holds that variance drives evolution.  That variance is now understood to include both meiotic recombination and mutation.  In the case of blue eyes, a mutation makes the pigment that normally makes eyes brown fail to form completely, resulting in a blue color instead.  Evolution does not hold that genes are rigid and unchanging--hence, that's not an argument, it's just a straw man.
679044
Darwins initial theory of evolution has some truth to it, the part of adaptation is essentially true.. the part of making something out of nothing and having it evolve is false .. only the Creator can do that.. as far at the earth being billions of years old.. that is also false... dinosaurs existed with man.. if you read Job it tells you that the giant animals were in existence and not all dinosaurs were giants.. there is a lot of information out there to research concerning your question.. the first book I would suggest is the Bible... it will essentially answer all of the above question.. if that doesn't satisfy you I would suggest checking in a Christian bookstore on evolution.. Darwin had some good ideas, but his predecessors ran with it in the wrong direction.
264365
Because we didn't evolve from apes we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with other apes (we are actually a species of ape, but you were probably using the term in the common, not the scientific, sense).  That common ancestor no longer exists.\n\nFor those who say that evolution is false:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to ca