“What evidence is there for evolution?”
“Fossils are made from the bodies of living things. They are very important as evidence for evolution. Almost all fossils found are of extinct species. This is more than 99% of all species that ever lived on earth.”
“How reliable is fossil evidence?”
“Conditions have to be just right for fossils to develop. Only a very few living things end up as fossils. So there are many gaps in the fossil record. Sometimes a new species seems to appear without any in-between link to an earlier species.
Although there are gaps in the fossil record, scientists have collected millions of fossils. This large amount has helped build up a picture of evolution.”
“Why are there gaps in the fossil record?”
“Evolution doesn’t happen at the same speed all the time. It happens in spurts. But a “spurt” of evolution may still take tens of thousands of years. It’s quite possible that the right conditions for fossil making didn’t happen during that time. So there would be no fossil evidence of the small changes that happened as the new species evolved.”
“What over evidence do we have for evolution?”
“Scientists can also compare the genes from different living things. The more genes to living things share, the more closely related they are. This helps scientist to work out where species fit into the evolutionary tree.”
I think that this source is very reliable as it’s from a book that we learn from and is made by scientists who have evidence for their findings. Its part of our curriculum and it’s supported by the government and their advisers as it’s a foundation for our learning. Also is also giving evidence for why fossils haven't formed and this is a very factual and accurate as its right to the point.
Evidence from living organs.
Homologous Structures
“If a bat, a human, an alligator, and a penguin all evolved from a common ancestor, then they should share common anatomical traits. In fact, they do. Compare the forelimbs of the human, the bat, the penguin, and the alligator. Find the humerus, radius, ulna, and carpals in each forelimb. Though the limbs look strikingly different on the outside and though they vary in function, they are very similar in skeletal structure. More significantly, they are derived from the same structures in the embryo. Structures that are embryo-logically similar, but have different functions, are called homologous structures. Though these animals look different, a comparison of homologous structures indicates that they are quite similar. This suggests that these animals evolved from a common ancestor.”
Vestigial Organs
“Some organisms have structures or organs that seem to serve no useful function. For example, humans have a tailbone at the end of the spine that is of no apparent use. Some snakes have tiny pelvic bones and limb bones, and some cave-dwelling salamanders have eyes even though members of the species are completely blind. Such seemingly functionless parts are called vestigial organs or structures. Vestigial organs are often homologous to organs that are useful in other species. The vestigial tailbone in humans is homologous to the functional tail of other primates. Thus vestigial structures can be viewed as evidence for evolution: organisms having vestigial structures probably share a common ancestry with organisms in with organisms in which the homologous structure is functional.”
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9- 12/evolution/HTML/live.html
BioWeb has its origins in 1995 at Hickman High School in Columbia, Missouri. Alex Reeder is the founder. I think this is reliable as his work appears to be peer assessed. It also has many other subjects on the web site that have also been peer assessed. It has got a very good and persuasive argument which is that living organs provide evidence from one common ancestor. It has used very scientific and high levels of science to back up its claim, like the picture which shows you very simply the evidence it is using.
This picture was from http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=838288&CID=A3D4F60942194999BCE75BE95CD51106&PPID=1&search=92266&f=c&FindID=92266&P=1&PP=3&sortby=PD&cname=DNA&SearchID=
DNA Evidence
“Genetic similarities between species are also interpreted as DNA evidence for evolution. The fact that human and chimp DNA are more than 96% the same is taken to mean that humans are genetically related to chimps and therefore descended from a common ancestor. Opponents of Darwin’s theory point out that there is a certain degree of genetic similarity to all living systems and that the more similar two species are, the more similar their DNA should appear. “The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.”
“The final category of DNA evidence for evolution which we will look at concerns Junk DNA and Pseudo genes. Junk DNA are segments of DNA whose function remains a mystery. We do not know what they do. Darwinists believe that Junk DNA are similar to vestigial organs in that they are useless vestiges from our evolutionary past. Opponents of the theory point out that just because we do not know what something does, that does not mean that it does not serve an important function. Consider vestigial organs. Back in the 19th Century there were dozens of organs which were designated “vestigial” because scientists could not figure out what they did. These, like Junk DNA, were interpreted as evidence for Darwin’s theory. Of a list of 86 put together by Robert Wiedersheim, one of Darwin’s disciples, only a handful remain ambiguous at the present time. Scientists have discovered important functions for all of the rest.”
“Similarly, we do not know much about Pseudo genes. Scientists believe that they are genes which have lost their function through mutation. As John Woodmorappe explains, “Arguments for shared evolutionary ancestry have been advanced based on the similarities in perceived disablements found in orthologous pseudo genes (counterpart pseudo genes in other primates).” Woodmorappe goes on to say however, “. . .A close examination shows that this presumed evidence is equivocal. Dissimilarities between the pseudo genes of presumably related organisms are at least as prominent as the similarities, and similarities in orthologous pseudo genes can arise independently of shared evolutionary ancestry.” I got this source from http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-evidence-for-evolution-faq.htm but its doesn't say who it was by or when. Its by a creationist site (religious) but its their scientific creationist version where they explain how god made the world. They are claiming similarities between living things and their DNA. Its showing this with factual information, like that we share 96% of DNA with chimps.
The Missing Link:In Human Evolution.
“Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial "missing link" between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom. The 47m-year-old primate – named Ida – has been hailed as the fossil equivalent of a "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the critical early stages of primate evolution. The top-level international research team, who have studied her in secret for the past two years, believe she is the most complete and best preserved primate fossil ever uncovered. The skeleton is 95% complete and thanks to the unique location where she died, it is possible to see individual hairs covering her body and even the make-up of her final meal.”
“The fossil's amazing preservation means that the scientific team has managed to glean a huge amount of information from it, although this required new X-ray techniques that had not previously been applied to any other specimens. The researchers believe it comes from the time when the primate lineage, that diversified into monkeys, apes and ultimately humans, split from a separate group that went on to become lemurs and other less well known species.Crucially though, Ida is not on the lemur line because she lacks two key characteristics shared by lemurs – a grooming claw on her second toe and a fused set of teeth called a tooth comb. Also, a bone in her ankle called the talus is shaped like members of our branch of the primates. So the researchers believe she may be on our evolutionary line dating from just after the split with the lemurs.”
The picture is from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/images/090519-missing-link-found_big.jpg
This source is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link. And the article was by James Randerson Tuesday 19 May 2009 15.30 BST. This article was by a news paper which are known for not always telling the truth but in this case they are as I cross referenced with a few other web sites and they all said the same. Its claims are backed up by very precise information. The picture also very a good back up of the article as you can see the grooming claw and fussed teeth which is the evidence the article. I think its very trust worthy and one of the keys of solving the evolution theory.
“Darwinius masillae represents the most complete fossil primate ever found, including both skeleton, soft body outline and contents of the digestive tract. Study of all these features allows a fairly complete reconstruction of life history, locomotion, and diet. Any future study of Eocene-Oligocene primates should benefit from information preserved in the Darwinius holotype. Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative 1 of the early haplorhine diversification.”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723 Editor: John Hawks, University of Wisconsin, United States of America Published: May 19, 2009 this source is very reliable as it concludes with the the source above on the last page. It gives many key scientific words and it backs up its claim with these used in very descriptive facts. I think that the web site is very trust worthy as its edited by a man from a university. Also the web site is where the findings of “Ida” have been published for peer assessment.
Evidence against.
Opening.
There are many different explanations of how the world came about, most of the argument is between religion and science. However there are some flaws in the science explanation, like the fossil record. Its missing many leaps in evolution and we are still looking for the missing link today.
The following source is from http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm Edited by Emerson Thomas McMullen, 2002
Science and its limitations
“Science has many limitations, but probably its worst shortcoming involves history. For example, if scientists did not know about the Battle of Waterloo, a turning point in history, what could they tell us? If we showed them the battleground, they could dig up bones, teeth, spent bullets, some corroded weapons, and other miscellaneous items to analyse. But they could not tell us much about the battle itself. They could only guess at the most important thing: who won it. Similarly, in the Battle of Midway, a turning point in the Pacific War, four Japanese carriers were sunk: the Akagi, Hiryu, Kaga, Soryu, and one American: theYorktown. In 1998, Robert Ballard, the explorer who found the Titanic, searched for these carriers. All he found was the Yorktown. Based on this evidence, and without knowing any history, one might wrongly infer that the United States lost this battle. “
“These examples show just how poorly science handles history. The beginning of life and the origin of living things are historical events. They are not happening now and scientists cannot observe them. We have no time machine to ascertain what really occurred. Yet we find evolutionists claiming to have the correct insights into these important historical events. Many assert that we came from chemicals and evolved from a common ancestor. Are these assertions based on science, or a naturalistic world view?”
Origins
“Let us first consider the origin of life. It is not happening today. If life arose in the past only from various chemicals, we have to ask two questions: 1. "How did a very complex molecule, DNA, occur when the best that can happen naturalistically is for chemicals to form amino acids?" 2. "Even given DNA, how did we obtain the intricate genetic information it contains from chemicals, which have no genetic information at all?" How does something come from nothing? Are evolutionists calling for miracles here, under the name of science? There is no genetic information in chemicals to mutate and no genetic information to undergo natural selection - mutation and natural selection being two mainstays of current evolutionary thinking. Also, there is no process that scientists know of, whereby amino acids naturally form DNA. Given these considerations, how can any clearly thinking person claim that we came from only chemicals? Yet some people do, so it would seem that their faith in a naturalistic world view overrides reason.”
“What we have noted about fish applies to other animals as well. It is no wonder that, amongst the billions of fossils we know about, scientists have found no clear-cut transitional forms. The idea of descent from a common ancestor is testable, but is found wanting. Again, evolutionists are calling for a miracle in the name of science and their faith overrides their reason. At present, there are two types of evolutionary ideas, Neo-Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium.”
"But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is . . .not borne out by the facts. The search for `missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless . . . because they probably never existed as distinct transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." "Missing, Believed Non-existent," Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1. “
I think that this source is quite reliable as it has many similar comments as the ones above by well known scientists. Its also by a university student but is on the universities web site, which are usually very reliable sources. It also backs up its claims with many pieces of evidence like the fact that no fossils have been found in some periods of time. But where its saying about the DNA part of its argument its not showing proof, only questions about what may of happened. And these comments are comparable to the next source as they both back each other up because, like the Manchester guardian comment, it backs up the comments.
Gaps in the fossil record.
Romer's gap is a good example of a gap in the fossil. Romer's gap spanned from approximately 360 to 345 million years ago. There are remarkably a few terrestrial fossils that date from the gap itself.
I got this information, along with the picture from http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/future.html and put it into my own words. I think it reliable as there are also many other articles with the same info on them. Its backing up its claim with truth as there have been few terrestrial fossils, I know this as I cross referenced with many other websites. It also has a very clear diagram of Romer's gap.
With a gap in the fossil record you cant prove evolution, as evolution is meant to make small changes over time. This hasn't been proven yet as there are many missing links, like in Romer's gap, just one of many. Romer's gap.
beliefs in religion.
Christian creation story.
1. “Day 1 - God created light and separated the light from the darkness, calling light "day" and darkness "night."
2. Day 2 - God created an expanse to separate the waters and called it "sky."
3. Day 3 - God created the dry ground and gathered the waters, calling the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters "seas." On day three, God also created vegetation (plants and trees).
4. Day 4 - God created the sun, moon, and the stars to give light to the earth and to govern and separate the day and the night. These would also serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years.
1. Day 5 - God created every living creature of the seas and every winged bird, blessing them to multiply and fill the waters and the sky with life.
1. Day 6 - God created the animals to fill the earth. On day six, God also created man and woman (Adam and Eve) in his own image to commune with him. He blessed them and gave them every creature and the whole earth to rule over, care for, and cultivate.
1. Day 7 - God had finished his work of creation and so he rested on the seventh day, blessing it and making it holy.”
This source was from http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm and is the generally excepted creation story. It was by Mary Fairchild. Its was called The Creation Story - Bible Story Summary. This is a belief and not a scientific explanation of life on earth, as It has no proof of what its claiming, it has no solid scientific explanation of what its putting forward. The evaluation of this is its not able to back up its claims with a good enough argument.
How could we be made so complex?
“The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.
This picture of a cell is from http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Godlogical3/cell.jpg
2. Formation of Life
“Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.”
I got this source from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm and the allaboutcreation web site also has a piece that cross references this and the bit above (the probability of life.....) is from a book (evolution in space) that's by some scientists. This likely hood backs up their claim of the unlikely hood of life from non living matter. They calculated this, so it wasn't a guess. But the calculation could have been miss calculated and it would needed to be peer assessed for it to be solid claim. This is also presented along with a good knowledge of what they are talking about to make it more reliable.
Conclusion For: many scientists are still researching into evolution. Some people think that this is the way we evolved. It has the strongest evidence out of any other theory. This is mainly because of the fossil evidence and the living organ evidence. Its a very persuasive set of evidence as it all links together, even thought there are some gaps in the fossil record. They generally always have Evidence for what they put forwards, so to back up their research they also peer assess. One of the strongest pieces of evidence is the recently found “ Ida” fossil which strongly links the human part of the evolution tree.
Conclusion against: some people think that religion is the main creator and they back this up with the missing fossils, and the fact that science can only take a guess at what happened with the evidence they have found. Also that the missing links haven't been found with the exception for “Ida”, which need to be found to link all the small changes. And when you compare the how could we be so complex and christianity you see how we could be designed as we are so complex and the argument of something cant coming from nothing (second law of thermodynamics) backs this up as well.
Overall conclusion: I think that evolution is true as I believe in Darwinism. Also I believe that the evidence for is stronger than the against. This is because I think that the for has presented a strong case and that the against is being picky about the small pieces that are missing. Also I feel that I would need to see to believe the religious side. For a scientific person the evidence is needed to be put forward to back up the claim, but religion is a belief to a scientist as there is no evidence like bones and more. I also think that the reason that we haven't found many of the missing links are because like it says in in the twenty first century science book, that the right conditions are needed for fossil forming so it may of not happened at that point in time, like in Romer's gap. Then in the against argument it says that one of the main issues is that we haven't found any fossils of missing links, so I think that the books argument out weighs the against argument as we may never find the fossils. But even so the for argument still has more evidence. I will leave it up to to to make up your own mind, but remember its up to you, there are many different interpretations of evidence and results from tests.
Contents
Page 1: Opening. A general explanation of evolution.
Page 2: A general explanation of evolution continued.
Page 3: Reliability of evolution. Questions and answers
Page 4: Questions and answers continued. Evidence from living organs.
Page 5: DNA.
Page 6: DNA continued. The missing link.
Page 7: The missing link continued.
Page 8: Against opening. Science and its limitations.
Page 9: Science and its limitations continued. Gaps in the fossil record.
Page 10: Gaps in the fossil record continued. Christianity.
Page 11: christianity continued. How could we be so complex.
Page 12: How could we be so complex continued. Conclusions.
Page 13: conclusions continued.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#The_modern_synthesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html By Laurence Moran.
“Twenty Fist Century Science, GCSE Science Higher” by David Brodie etco Published by Oxford University Press. This source is from a book.
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9- 12/evolution/HTML/live.html
Alex is the founder. 1995.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-evidence-for-evolution-faq.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link And the article was by James Randerson Tuesday 19 May 2009 15.30 BST.
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm Edited by Emerson Thomas McMullen, 2002
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/future.html
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm It was by Mary Fairchild. Its was called The Creation Story - Bible Story Summary.
http://www.slh.wisc.edu/genetics/gene_02.gif Allele picture
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/images/090519-missing-link-found_big.jpg Ida picture
http://www.allposters.co.uk/gallery.asp?startat=/getposter.asp&APNum=838288&CID=A3D4F60942194999BCE75BE95CD51106&PPID=1&search=92266&f=c&FindID=92266&P=1&PP=3&sortby=PD&cname=DNA&SearchID= this is the DNA picture
This picture of a cell is from http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Godlogical3/cell.jpg
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
This is the “how could we be made so complex” argument.
