The evidence for evolution

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Your theory failed...
Now my theory...
Theory confirmed...

Do you know what the scientific use of the word theory means? What you described were hypotheses. A theory is an explanation for a series of phenomena and how they work. Hypotheses are educated guesses upon which you base an experiment that the results of which will either confirm or refute the hypothesis.

 

[Upisoft]

Functional Redundancy. There are 2x10^93 Functional sequences. Yeast cyt c is 40% different from ours.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy
But there's so many possible functional sequences, why would they be even 10% similar unless they derive from common ancestory?

Sorry, misunderstood you. Thought you're talking about Cyt C is the same in all organisms.

Well now one can argue that God created all organisms with the same Cyt C sequence, but then it mutated. Unfortunately I can't think of a prediction now

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Well now one can argue that God created all organisms with the same Cyt C sequence, but then it mutated.

That's essentially what science says under evolution. All organisms had the same cyt c (last common ancestor) and then it mutated.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Now let's move on to Mitochondrial DNA.
Everybody has two sets of DNA, nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria are parts of the cell that produce energy. Mitochondria have unique DNA (this is also true of chloroplasts in plants and algae). The explanation for why it has it's own DNA is that it was once a free living single celled organism that was engulphed by another unicellular organism and the two organisms engaged in a symbiotic relationship.
Mitochondria is passed down only by the mother so it is subject to much less change than nuclear DNA which results from the combination of DNA from two individuals at fertilization. This DNA is both highly conserved and gives us an entire data set from which we can compare individuals.
Thus if nuclear DNA and MtDNA comparisons reach the same conclusion of relatedness, then the conclusion is stronger because it derives from two different data sets that converged on a consensus result.
MtDNA is also consistent with Nuclear DNA that we are closely related to chimps.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul00.html

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Okay here's an overview of the evidence for evolution:

Nuclear DNA - this includes both gross comparison and comparison of the coding for proteins (Since there are thousands of proteins in the body, this can be tested over and over to ensure consistency).

Mitochondrial DNA - passed down only by mother and is much less prone to change (having two pieces of DNA provides two data sets that should be consistent).

Comparative anatomy - One of the main methods used to group taxa. When you dissect a mouse, a whale, and a human, apart from size they look the same.

Bone Structural comparison - The skull of almost any given vertebrate for example has dozens of bones and each is named and measured precisely and these can be compared.

Fossil record - Not only gives us evidence of what paths life likely took to progress.

Embryology - Many higher taxa are grouped together because they share developmental stages. Ebryos can show which structures arise from which developmental cells. This has been used to confirm that bird feathers are derived from reptilian scales.

Biogeography - The study of the distribution of species on the planet using a combination evolution and geography. Species occur almost precisely where we would expect them to based on the fossil record and plate tectonics.

Ecology - Ecology is the study of the interactions between organisms, species, and the environment. This is essentially the study of the factors that drive evolution.

Symbiosis - When the family trees of symbiotic species are layed on top of each other, they fit almost perfectly. I.E. when one species splits off, so does its symbiotic species.

Please explain why this isn't enough evidence and what would be sufficient.

I think it's a good idea to reemphasize what the key pieces of evidence are, why they say what we think they say, and why they are valid.

 

[gamespotter10]

Okay here's an overview of the evidence for evolution:

Nuclear DNA - this includes both gross comparison and comparison of the coding for proteins (Since there are thousands of proteins in the body, this can be tested over and over to ensure consistency).

Simple. God made it that way

Mitochondrial DNA - passed down only by mother and is much less prone to change (having two pieces of DNA provides two data sets that should be consistent).

God made it that way

Comparative anatomy - One of the main methods used to group taxa. When you dissect a mouse, a whale, and a human, apart from size they look the same.

God made it that way

Bone Structural comparison - The skull of almost any given vertebrate for example has dozens of bones and each is named and measured precisely and these can be compared.

God made it that way

Fossil record - Not only gives us evidence of what paths life likely took to progress.

God made it that way

Embryology - Many higher taxa are grouped together because they share developmental stages. Ebryos can show which structures arise from which developmental cells. This has been used to confirm that bird feathers are derived from reptilian scales.

God made it that way

Biogeography - The study of the distribution of species on the planet using a combination evolution and geography. Species occur almost precisely where we would expect them to based on the fossil record and plate tectonics.

God made it that way

Ecology - Ecology is the study of the interactions between organisms, species, and the environment. This is essentially the study of the factors that drive evolution.

God made it that way

Symbiosis - When the family trees of symbiotic species are layed on top of each other, they fit almost perfectly. I.E. when one species splits off, so does its symbiotic species.

God made it that way