Evidence for macroevolution

I believe most everyone participating in this forum agrees that "micro-evolution" is a fact. Only some of us advocate the position that common descent is well enough documented to be a fact. Only some of us agree that the evolution of novel features is well enough documented to be a fact.

Those who are in the second to groups: let's see some of the evidence! I'd like to see you discuss why this evidence supports macroevolution, and I'd like to see you discuss why it doesn't support any competing hypothesis, like Intelligent Design (in the cases where it doesn't).

I think a couple of the creationists (or other evolution-deniers) on this board have only a limited idea of what the evidence is, and I think it would be good to bring some of it right out into the open...

Remember, the creationists are none too trusting, so please, where possible, cite references from the literature that support your claims of evidence!

Have fun!

I guess I will go first. I will start small, with just a single tiny tidbit. Feel free to challenge the worth of this as evidence, but bear in mind that it is only a small fraction of the total evidence for common descent. It is not intended to represent conclusive evidence, so please do not respond as though it is. Treat it as a single piece of the puzzle and object only if you think it does not support evolution in any way (or if you think it supports another model better).

Evidence from primate biogeography and paleobiogeography:
Several independent lines of evidence can produce this partial phylogeny of the primate family:

+------------------->New World Monkeys
|
|
|
|
+------------------->Old World Monkeys
-------|
-------|
-------|---------+----->Orangatans
great--|---------|
apes---+---------|----+-->Gorillas
-----------------+----|
----------------------|--+--->Chimps
----------------------|--|
----------------------+--|
-------------------------+--->Humans

The modern biogeographical distributions of these groups are well known, and the biological relationships between these groups can be checked further by the location of fossil finds of each group.

Old World Monkeys and the great apes are restricted to Africa and Asia. New World Monkeys are restricted to South and Central America. This is explained by divergence of the two lines after the splitting off of South America from Africa when Pangaea broke apart. We can therefore predict that no fossil great apes will be found in the New World, and that any fossil candidates for common ancestors between the great apes will be found in Africa and Asia.

Based on any theory that does not depend on a "blood" relationship between those lines, we could make no similar prediction. There would be no reason to expect that there were never any apes in the Americas, since the continents of the West and those of the East were once joined. Furthermore, there would be no reason to expect that we shouldn't eventually find great apes similar to the ones of Africa and Asia that are indigenous to South America.

Among all the great apes, the only the humans inhabit the Americas, and those that the humans brought with them. Among all the great apes, only human remains are found in the Western Hemisphere, and those, only recent.

Candidates for human-chimp transitions, such as Australopithecus are found only in Africa (and a few others, most closely related to humans in Asia). Fossil candidates for Human/chimp-gorrila common ancestors, such as Aegyptopithecus and Proconsul are found only in Africa and Asia.

edited to add: Apparently my formatting of the phylogenetic diagram was lost... I hope you can make sense of it... I will try to fix it if I can figure out a way.
Fixed, sort of..

I cannot accurately and concisely summarize the material on this web page without plagiarizing, but to further the discussion of the evidence for macroevolution, I do want to point those interested to this discussion of transitional froms, by Glenn Morton:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PS...#Evolution____

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

I just noticed that Ray K had posted a good summary, hitting some of the high points of the evidence for evolution. Although the discussion immediately digressed to discuss other topics, and was eventually de-railed altogether, it looks like he put a lot of work into writing his summary, and it is well worth a look.

http://www.christianforums.com/forum...threadid=10323

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

OK first off marcoevolution was a thing created by christains, but, did anyone else here think that enough mirco evolution will lead to marco evolution!!!!!!!!!!
anyways the idea of mircoevolution is dumb, if you want to talk science USE REAL TERMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
"Cash Money, Bling bling!!! WHAT UP DOGGG!!"

I'm not sure if "is DUMB!!!" counts as evidence. Furthermore, I'm not sure if it counts as evidence for or against.


Anyway, this was to be a thread about the evidence. The choice of terms was made to recognize the distinction drawn by those who deny that evolutionary changes have been or can be large and significant. If you do not recognize the distinction, even if it is an artificial one, you cannot argue against the conclusions based on it.

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

Just an obvious one: All the mammals have basically similar bone structures, which don't make any sense for most of them. e.g., our rib cage is really better designed for being horizontal than vertical, but we spend a lot of time vertical. The structures of the various legs in cats, dogs, and humans are more similar than makes any sense, unless we all derived them from similar basic structures. The degree of anatomical similarity between mammals is astounding - and not necessary for them to be successful in their niches. It certainly doesn't suggest that God makes mammals the same way - why would He do that, since there's no particular *advantage* to us in having the same basic bone structure as a cat? Had He been going about with a magic wand making things from scratch, we'd probably have much stronger hips, and cats would probably have different leg joints.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

I was told that animals with non-sensical anatomies (the platypus was the actual subject) were actually proof that God had "a sense of humor" :rolleyes:

They may well be proof that God has a sense of humor... On the other hand, he also has a sense of putting all the marsupials on an isolated body of land, as though the pouch thing had evolved there, and then they had split off.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

Bryne and Nichols (1999) did genetic and behavioral studies on mosquitoes in the London Underground and found that they were a reproductively isolated and genetically distinct from the parent population. There are noticable differences between the surface and underground populations, which can be characterized as macroevolutionary since speciation has occured.

__________________
~~RvFvS~~
Evolution: The change of properties of populations of organisms over time.
Microevolution: Evolution apparent within species.
Macroevolution: Evolution apparent between species.

The accuracy of science cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, or religion.