Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[Not3in1]

Tonight on the History Channel they were advertising for a Evolution bit coming up. It was quite an elaborate intro to the program, showing monkey's flying from trees and then walking on their legs. Showing hairy ape-like creatures going through various changes until they were men.

My 10 year old son was watching with interest. I didn't say a word. He turns to me and says, “Mom, what are they talking about?” and so I explained about evolution (to the best of my ability). He says, “But that doesn't make sense. If we evolved, then we would have had to of changed our natures from animal to human and that sounds incredible.”

But what I am interested in knowing is how can a being change/evolve it's nature? We still have animal's so what type of animal decided or was selected to evolve and change it's nature to human? And what caused or selected the other animals to remain as they are?

[Stu]

Hi Not3in1

Good for you explaining it. If it is true our children need to know about it. If it is disproven in the future at least they will know what the science said and why it was wrong (it's been right for 150 years, and still going strong!)

The questions is a deep one, and the answer is in what it means to be human. I think we have a species-centric way of looking at the living world, even the non-living one – just look at how badly cars sell if the front grill and lights doesn't resemble a human face! I am convinced that cats have a cat-centric view too, and why not all species, to the extent that they can have a view. We have a higher intelligence than probably any other species, and that cunning plus our ability to eat a huge range of food are probably our greatest survival traits.

So why is a human different from our reasonably close cousins orangutans? We already know we share a great deal in common, for example distinct cultures and a capacity for language. Several reserchers have developed language in common with chimpanzees and those animals can express emotions virtually identical to human ones, using that language.

Of course, the other animals have been changing to keep up with their environments too, it's just that the direction natural selection has taken us has meant we have competed and been able to dominate the environmnent we shared with other hominids (all now extinct), and we are now encroaching on the living quarters of our slightly more distant cousins.

As an aside, of course there is a great theological question here (is 'great theological question' an oxymoron?!), which I think a lot of christians mow over completely with young-earth, or youngish-earth creationist fallacies, thus avoiding the issue of when we became human and whether our non-human ancestors had the same relatinship with their gods as we do today. I believe that archeology has something to say about this – you can anticipate that the first objects that might be some kind of devotional art could be evidence of belief in the supernatural.

Part of the evolutionary answer is that the fairly sudden increase in brain size about 3-4 million years ago was an important transition to becoming what we are today, and forming our point of difference with other species of animal. The only reasonable theological argument would have to say something similar, for it to make any sense.

Stuart

[Stu]

…just to clarify that last paragraph, the sudden increase in brain size began 3-4 million years ago at a time when cranial capacity was 400mL. Our brains (starting with our ancestor's brains) have doubled in volume in the last 1.7 million years, from 800mL to over 1500mL today. The exact time you could say we “became human” is certainly debateable.

Stuart

[kenrch]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 27 2007,19:48)

Tonight on the History Channel they were advertising for a Evolution bit coming up. It was quite an elaborate intro to the program, showing monkey's flying from trees and then walking on their legs. Showing hairy ape-like creatures going through various changes until they were men. My 10 year old son was watching with interest. I didn't say a word. He turns to me and says, “Mom, what are they talking about?” and so I explained about evolution (to the best of my ability). He says, “But that doesn't make sense. If we evolved, then we would have had to of changed our natures from animal to human and that sounds incredible.” But what I am interested in knowing is how can a being change/evolve it's nature? We still have animal's so what type of animal decided or was selected to evolve and change it's nature to human? And what caused or selected the other animals to remain as they are?

THAT'S TWO t8!

HEY I MAY HANG AROUND AND COUNT THEM FOR YOU!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 27 2007,21:40)

…just to clarify that last paragraph, the sudden increase in brain size began 3-4 million years ago at a time when cranial capacity was 400mL.  Our brains (starting with our ancestor's brains) have doubled in volume in the last 1.7 million years, from 800mL to over 1500mL today.  The exact time you could say we “became human” is certainly debateable. Stuart

stu

A child can understand that if monkeys evolved into humans, there would no longer be monkeys, or at least there would be the missing link.

Yep it is debatable alright. Like arguing over the reproduction of a species.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?  

Cant believe grown people still entertain these thoughts!

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 28 2007,03:31)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 27 2007,21:40) …just to clarify that last paragraph, the sudden increase in brain size began 3-4 million years ago at a time when cranial capacity was 400mL.  Our brains (starting with our ancestor's brains) have doubled in volume in the last 1.7 million years, from 800mL to over 1500mL today.  The exact time you could say we “became human” is certainly debateable. Stuart stu A child can understand that if monkeys evolved into humans, there would no longer be monkeys, or at least there would be the missing link. Yep it is debatable alright. Like arguing over the reproduction of a species. Which came first the chicken or the egg?   Cant believe grown people still entertain these thoughts!

The whole effect of evolution is that animals adapt to their environment and end up occupying different ecological niches. As grassland hunter-gatherers we have not been in direct competition with forest-dwelling monkeys so why would they go extinct? It is a tree of life, not a single tall twig!

The chicken and egg debate is immature, I agree, but so is the idea that some species must go extinct. This has happened, but is not a necessary part of the evolutionary model.

I presume from your post that you reject the scientific theory of evolution. What is your equivalent theory that explains our observations better, that is falsifiable, that makes predictions like evolution by natural selection does?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 28 2007,01:37)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 27 2007,19:48) Tonight on the History Channel they were advertising for a Evolution bit coming up.  It was quite an elaborate intro to the program, showing monkey's flying from trees and then walking on their legs.  Showing hairy ape-like creatures going through various changes until they were men. My 10 year old son was watching with interest.  I didn't say a word.  He turns to me and says, “Mom, what are they talking about?” and so I explained about evolution (to the best of my ability).  He says, “But that doesn't make sense.  If we evolved, then we would have had to of changed our natures from animal to human and that sounds incredible.”   But what I am interested in knowing is how can a being change/evolve it's nature?  We still have animal's so what type of animal decided or was selected to evolve and change it's nature to human?  And what caused or selected the other animals to remain as they are? THAT'S TWO t8! HEY I MAY HANG AROUND AND COUNT THEM FOR YOU!

Hi Kenrch

Lets say that your interpretaion of the NT (as I understand it, correct me if I am wrong) is right – the literal inspired word of god, recorded faithfully as spoken through the messiah, who did say it is all good to teach, but that what you teach from the OT is not literal but allegorical. You could argue that such an interpretation does not cause the entire foundation of christian belief to crumble. So why then do you celebrate ignorance, and stir people up when they are expressing curiosity about the world. Surely 'investigating god's creation' is something you can relate to? Are you anti-education? Do you just think some areas of human investigation should be off-limit for some people?

Phil 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Some seek truth and honesty without putting on their own blinkers.

Stuart

[Not3in1]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 27 2007,21:40)

The exact time you could say we “became human” is certainly debateable.

Stu,

I guess my original question still stands, and on top of that I have a few new ones.

Increasing brain capacity doesn't seem to answer the ability to change one's nature of being? A plant is a plant. An animal is an animal. A human is a human. In other words, how does one become – selected – to become – another?

I don't want to get a head of myself so I will wait for clarification on this point before I ask the other questions. Thanks.

[Not3in1]

Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 28 2007,01:37)

THAT'S TWO t8! HEY I MAY HANG AROUND AND COUNT THEM FOR YOU!

t8 is no more responsible for my salvation than you are, Ken.

I appreciate your drive to protect your little sister in the Lord – but you have to give me some credit. Right?

Also, do you think you can protect me from all other's in the world that may be “anti-Christ's”? t8 can't protect me either. He shouldn't even try! The Lord is the one who will help me to stand. He will keep me safe, brother.

I know you care about me. I also care about you. But you'll have to give me some room here to explore. I'm not signing-up for any kind of evolution committee or anything – I'm researching. And my son is also being exposed to some great world views so that he can be informed. There is nothing wrong with this. Being informed is a great thing! Had I not been informed about the Trinity……I would still be a Trinitarian. I cannot reinforce this enough, Ken. You must let me learn and find out things for myself. OK?

Love ya bro,
Mandy

[charity]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 28 2007,06:24)

Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 28 2007,01:37) THAT'S TWO t8! HEY I MAY HANG AROUND AND COUNT THEM FOR YOU! t8 is no more responsible for my salvation than you are, Ken. I appreciate your drive to protect your little sister in the Lord – but you have to give me some credit.  Right? Also, do you think you can protect me from all other's in the world that may be “anti-Christ's”?  t8 can't protect me either.  He shouldn't even try!  The Lord is the one who will help me to stand.  He will keep me safe, brother. I know you care about me.  I also care about you.  But you'll have to give me some room here to explore.  I'm not signing-up for any kind of evolution committee or anything – I'm researching.  And my son is also being exposed to some great world views so that he can be informed.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Being informed is a great thing!  Had I not been informed about the Trinity……I would still be a Trinitarian.  I cannot reinforce this enough, Ken.  You must let me learn and find out things for myself.  OK?   Love ya bro, Mandy

Hi mandy, we need to protect ourselves from the set up forces of Iniquity, Ideas, that teach us to fear Man, by words written as gospel, there foundational motives of destruction, that our whole being HAS/ is consumed, departing with unconsciousness to Attack on our first step “faith”
if you grow up with unbelieving parents, and go out to find your way, you are most probably , going to get labeled Antichrist, FAST, IN THE SEASON OF QUESTIONS, on the hand it is said, whoever specks against Christ is not condemned, that they may receive a token of grace to begin there faith.

(antichrist)One liners, decieved token steelers love to use the scritpure against those with weack to nothing faith?
occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 1 (1Jo 2:18 – 2Jo 1:7)
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

charity

[david]

Quote

(it's been right for 150 years, and still going strong!)

Umm. No.

As you yourself state, the understanding keeps changing. That's what makes science so great, right? The Darwinian belief isn't really what evolutionists today believe. The slow changes over time haven't been shown. So, we need to make a change to make it fit. Mutations.

It was either “wrong” before or wrong now about mutations. It hasn't been “right” all along, in that it keeps changing.
You would say it is changing to fit the evidence. I believe it is a more of grasping at staws. If it's not this, it has to be that, even though that doesn't make sense–let's make it fit.

Is it true that there are way more species today than fossils that have been categorized?
And if this is true, why?

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Nov. 28 2007,12:41)

Quote (it's been right for 150 years, and still going strong!) Umm.  No. As you yourself state, the understanding keeps changing.  That's what makes science so great, right?  The Darwinian belief isn't really what evolutionists today believe.  The slow changes over time haven't been shown.  So, we need to make a change to make it fit.  Mutations.   It was either “wrong” before or wrong now about mutations.  It hasn't been “right” all along, in that it keeps changing.   You would say it is changing to fit the evidence.  I believe it is a more of grasping at staws.  If it's not this, it has to be that, even though that doesn't make sense–let's make it fit. Is it true that there are way more species today than fossils that have been categorized? And if this is true, why?

Um yes. What Darwin said is still right, in its essence. What he got wrong is really trivial compared to the main thrust of the key ideas which are still right. It is obviously true that Darwin did not know about Mendelian genetics, or the structure of DNA and the molecular mechanism of how it codes for proteins. Despite that, his predictions been borne out by subsequent discoveries and those findings he did not predict have fitted his original theory more or less perfectly. If you claim that Darwin's ignorance of mutation as a mechanism of producing variation (he knew there was something causing it, just not what it was) is a weakness then I suggest to you that actually it is a testament to his brilliance as a scientist.

Re: fossils: I don't know. If it is true, so what?
Fossilisation is not straightforward. Human origins for example are notoriously difficult to resolve clearly, due to the fact that rainforests don't allow much in the way of fossilisation. Also we have very few fossils from the first 2-3 billion years of life (ie most of the history of life on earth) not because there aren't any (there are some!) but because the animals involved did not have hard body parts that left fossils. That is a large proportion of all species that have existed right there. If you are going to demand a high-resolution fossil trail for every speciation event then your expectations are unreasonable by anyone's standard. If you want to deny evolution, this will be an unprofitable route to follow because the low-resolution picture that we do have of the last 500 million years really cannot be explained adequately in any other way than by evolution by natural selection. You yourself have had many opportunities to present an alternative theory, and none has yet been forthcoming.

Stuart

PS When are you going to pick up on my use of the words “not possible” in my reply to Laurel above?

[david]

Quote

You yourself have had many opportunities to present an alternative theory, and none has yet been forthcoming.

My theory, for the 84th time, is the God (a far superior advanced alien being if it helps you to understand) created the universe. If You want the math behind it, my “theory” is that he used the vast amounts of energy the Bible says he has and turned it into matter.

My theory is based largely on the fact that our universe exists. It really shouldn't. It would be so much easier and more likely that it wouldn't. The strong and week nuclear forces, the electro magnetic force, the force of gravity…

Take the electro magnetic force. If this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life.

A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines whether we live or not.

Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe.

If any of these fundamental forces were off, the universe as we know it could not exist, and no universe could exist for very long. IT would have already collapses upon itself or become so … spacious….

Anyway, to me, I have to wonder why these numbers are just as they are…when those are the only numbers they could be. Any other numbers and we don't exist…nothing does.

[david]

Quote

may I say just for the record that the creation myths you are discussing are not actually true, nor even possible.

Quote

When are you going to pick up on my use of the words “not possible” in my reply to Laurel above?

You're right, stu,
1. it's impossible for someone to be more advanced in understanding than we presently are.
2. It's impossible for someone to know more than you about math and science and the laws of nature.
And since these things are impossible, a creator could never exist. IT's impossible.
Oh, right…the first two statements were obviously incorrect. By the year 2030 or whatever, we'll be establishing life on mars (only what, 60 years after we began to explore space!!!) And yet, it's impossible for someone who is perhaps a google plex times older to create life. Ya. Makes sense. How small our minds are. How pathetically small.

[david]

Predictions of Predictions of Facts as Found in
Evolution Model Creation Model the Real World

Life evolved from Life comes only (1) Life comes only
nonlife by chance from previous life; from previous life;
chemical evolution originally created (2) no way to form
(spontaneous by an intelligent complex genetic code
generation) Creator by chance

Fossils should show: Fossils should show: Fossils show:
(1) simple life (1) complex forms (1) sudden appearance
forms originating suddenly appearing of complex life in
gradually; in great variety; great variety;
(2) transitional (2) gaps separating (2) each new kind
forms linking major kinds; no separate from
previous ones linking forms previous kinds;
no linking forms

New kinds arising No new kinds No new kinds
gradually; gradually appearing; gradually appearing,
beginnings of no incomplete bones although many
incomplete bones or organs, but all varieties; no
and organs in parts completely incompletely formed
various transitional formed bones or organs
stages

Mutations: net Mutations harmful to Small mutations
result beneficial; complex life; do harmful, large ones
generate new not result in lethal; never result
features anything new in anything new

Origin of Civilization Civilization
civilization contemporaneous with appears with man;
gradual, arising out man; complex to any cave dwellers
of crude, brutish begin with were contemporary
beginnings with civilization

Language evolved Language Language
from simple animal contemporaneous with contemporaneous with
sounds into complex man; ancient man; ancient ones
modern languages languages complex often more complex
and complete than modern

Appearance of man Appearance of man Oldest written
millions of years about 6,000 years records date back
ago ago only about 5,000
years

I know the columns will be messed up.

There is a logical conclusion to what the actual facts reveal.

[david]

Quote

Evolution has lots of hard evidence, and makes predictions that come true.

–stu, nature of faith thread.

It makes predictions that come true? (see above) As far as I can tell, it's predictions have largely been wrong, and so we have to keep introducing new possible ideas about how to 'make it work.'

[Stu]

Hi David

Quote

Quote You yourself have had many opportunities to present an alternative theory, and none has yet been forthcoming. My theory, for the 84th time, is the God (a far superior advanced alien being if it helps you to understand) created the universe. If You want the math behind it, my “theory” is that he used the vast amounts of energy the Bible says he has and turned it into matter. My theory is based largely on the fact that our universe exists. It really shouldn't. It would be so much easier and more likely that it wouldn't.

The fact that cars exist is not good evidence that they evolved by natural selection. If this being you posit is able to affect matter, there must be a means by which he can be detected. What physical evidence is there for his existence, which is not just a statement of the existence of matter? The existence of matter is equally good evidence for the big bang, except there is other real evidence to support this model.

Your ‘theory’ lacks falsifiability, prediction and a mechanism. The big bang and evolution by natural selection each have all three. The only weak point is the exact nature of the asymmetrical baryon-antibaryon separation in the big bang. Reading Genesis has proven to be no help at all in solving this one!

Quote

The strong and week nuclear forces, the electro magnetic force, the force of gravity… Take the electro magnetic force. If this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life. A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines whether we live or not.

Still don’t see a theory. If we don’t have atoms then we don’t have life as we know it. However, we do have atoms and we do have life. That is not evidence for any particular theory over another, although intelligent deists, who have thought long and hard about it, are reduced to the “why isn’t there nothing” argument, having sensibly already realised that the kind of thing you are proposing is pointless sophistry at best. The designed universe you describe is indistinguishable from a non-designed one; this is especially clear in the light of Darwin’s description of us changing to match our environment. We don’t see strange anomalies in the laws of nature that are there just for us. The same inverse-square law of gravity that makes stars form has allowed our human physique to evolve to the kind of height and weight humans are. Is it a coincidence? Good design? No, we evolved to cope with / benefit from gravity as it happens to be. There is no special argument for design here, and all the other evidence points in the opposite direction.

Quote

Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. If any of these fundamental forces were off, the universe as we know it could not exist, and no universe could exist for very long. IT would have already collapses upon itself or become so … spacious….

At my work, IT collapses about every two days…

What do you mean by “off”? Iron has the most thermodynamically stable nucleus of all the elements. If atoms could form at all, you would expect iron to exist if anything is going to however, you would have to have hydrogen first. All atoms from the first one up to the 92nd (uranium) occur naturally, and that indicates we are well inside the conditions needed to make atoms, the range of flexibility in the forces allowing atom-making is enough to make heavy atoms that are not essential for our survival (you could argue that radioactive uranium is an essential component in inducing mutations for natural selection to work on!).

You are really comparing the probability of it being some kind of super being against the probability that the matter produced in the big bang does by chance have the properties required to make atoms. I’m not familiar with the calculations required, but you could certainly multiply together the fractions of each of the ranges of each of the fundamental forces that overlap to allow atom production. I imagine you get a small number. (This ignores the high likelihood that the fundamental forces are codependent, cf. the GUT). By comparison, based on the sum of the objective evidence, the probability of a creator is zero, and this is backed up by the previously discussed logical regressing cycle of complexity produced by an even more complex being that required a complex origin in turn.

Quote

Anyway, to me, I have to wonder why these numbers are just as they are…when those are the only numbers they could be. Any other numbers and we don't exist…nothing does.

Well a least we are down to the most plausible creationist tirade against science, the anthropomorphic principle. In the words of the late great Douglas Adams, “Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole”

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Nov. 28 2007,16:37)

Quote may I say just for the record that the creation myths you are discussing are not actually true, nor even possible. Quote When are you going to pick up on my use of the words “not possible” in my reply to Laurel above? You're right, stu, 1. it's impossible for someone to be more advanced in understanding than we presently are. 2. It's impossible for someone to know more than you about math and science and the laws of nature. And since these things are impossible, a creator could never exist.  IT's impossible. Oh, right…the first two statements were obviously incorrect.  By the year 2030 or whatever, we'll be establishing life on mars (only what, 60 years after we began to explore space!!!)  And yet, it's impossible for someone who is perhaps a google plex times older to create life.  Ya.  Makes sense.  How small our minds are.  How pathetically small.

Maybe. But, science presents an entirely consistent view (if not immediately, at least eventually) and creationists never have. I don't have quite the contempt for our intellect that you do. When we can let go of our prejudices, and we always carry the required level of doubt, our achievements are quite commendable. I hasten, before you call me a fundamentalist, to follow this with a repeat of the question about whether you believe the possiblity that there is no god of the kind you describe. Do you have the required doubt?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Nov. 28 2007,16:51)

Predictions of        Predictions of        Facts as Found in Evolution Model       Creation Model        the Real World Life evolved from     Life comes only       (1) Life comes only nonlife by chance     from previous life;   from previous life; chemical evolution    originally created    (2) no way to form (spontaneous          by an intelligent     complex genetic code generation)           Creator               by chance Fossils should show:  Fossils should show:  Fossils show: (1) simple life       (1) complex forms    (1) sudden appearance forms originating     suddenly appearing    of complex life in gradually;            in great variety;     great variety; (2) transitional      (2) gaps separating   (2) each new kind forms linking         major kinds; no       separate from previous ones         linking forms         previous kinds;                                            no linking forms New kinds arising     No new kinds          No new kinds gradually;            gradually appearing;  gradually appearing, beginnings of         no incomplete bones   although many incomplete bones      or organs, but all    varieties; no and organs in         parts completely      incompletely formed various transitional  formed                bones or organs stages Mutations: net        Mutations harmful to  Small mutations result beneficial;     complex life; do      harmful, large ones generate new          not result in         lethal; never result features              anything new          in anything new Origin of             Civilization          Civilization civilization          contemporaneous with  appears with man; gradual, arising out  man; complex to       any cave dwellers of crude, brutish     begin with            were contemporary beginnings                                  with civilization Language evolved      Language              Language from simple animal    contemporaneous with  contemporaneous with sounds into complex   man; ancient          man; ancient ones modern languages      languages complex     often more complex                      and complete          than modern Appearance of man     Appearance of man     Oldest written millions of years     about 6,000 years     records date back ago                   ago                   only about 5,000                                            years I know the columns will be messed up. There is a logical conclusion to what the actual facts reveal.

Another creationist strawman cut-and-paste…

How about this:

The Jesus model The scientific model What we observe

A human was born 'Not possible' Never observed
of a virgin

A human walked on 'Not possible' Never observed
earth after his own
death

A human walked on Defies laws of gravity Never observed
the surface of water
unsupported

('Not possible' = the models we have predict that this will never happen).

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote
Evolution has lots of hard evidence, and makes predictions that come true.
–stu, nature of faith thread.

Quote

It makes predictions that come true? (see above) As far as I can tell, it's predictions have largely been wrong, and so we have to keep introducing new possible ideas about how to 'make it work.'

Will these 15 predictions do for starters?

1. Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
2. Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was “inexplicable” and that the lack might “be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
3. There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
4. Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The “Cretaceous seaway” deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
5. Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
6. Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
7. Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found – the cynodont therapsids.
8. It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
9. In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
10. Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
11. In “The Origin Of Species” (1859), Darwin said:
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
12. Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
13. A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
14. The “same” protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do – namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
15. An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the
water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record – Pakicetus and Ambulocetus – lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts