<span title="Evolution-Creation-Whatever">Evolution-Creation-Whatev...</span> Challenge!?

Question

Alrighty people, this is a little challenge. I want to keep this nice and clean so no flaming or what not. This is it.

1. Do you agree with evolution.

2. What is the evidence to support evolution

3. what is the evidence against evolution

If you cannot give all three answers, please don't answer and "none" or whatever does not count as an answer. thanks!

Answer 1

1. Yeah, sure, why not?

2. Fossil evidence, natural selection as seen in bacteria, due to misuse of antibiotics. (We&#039;re creating super bugs, people!)

3. Sort of. Evolution as it is generally accepted (gradual process) may be wrong. Instead, the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium has been put forth.

If evolution occurred as we thought, then there would be a h**l of a lot more transitional fossils. However, this is not the case, as it is still unexplained how something such as an eye could develop gradually, rather than as a sudden occurrence such as mutation.

This theory states that evolution is virtually non-existent for extended periods of time, then a sudden surge of evolution occurs within a species, which would explain the eye example I gave.

It would also explain the lack of transitional fossils, which should be in relative abundance (yes, I do know how rare things are to be fossilized), but aren&#039;t.

So, there you go. All three answered.

Answer 2

ive seen that movie Evolution...so evolution obviously exists

Answer 3

hmm lets see here....

1. i DO believe in the theory of evolution with all its evidence and obvious correctness

2. what evidence is there not supporting it?

theyve found quite a bit of fossil evidence and found links between us and the apes of today. i could go on but i wont

3. you could say god but theres no evidence towards him even existing so any argument of his - such as creationism - also has no proof

some people say carbon dating is all a falacy and the earth is only a few million years old, but then how do you explain all the other evidence pointing twards the planet being much older and all  the other solid scientific evidence backing up evolution

Answer 4

1. Yes.

2. See my answer to this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

3. As others have said, &quot;None&quot; is the only valid answer here ... because if there were ANY evidence against evolution, then it would not be the accepted cornerstone of modern biology that it has been since the mid 1800&#039;s.  There are no problems, NONE, that are recognized by the scientirfic community as valid, that cause any serious doubt among biologists. NONE.

That is not to say that there are not plenty of open questions in evolutionary theory.  Questions about the pace of evolution, about the mechanisms of speciation, the relative importance of natural selection vs. genetic drift,  the role of crossover in recombination, the role of plasmids, prions, viral transplantation of genes, hybridization, changes in ploidy, etc. etc.

But these are just questions.   Not one of them rises to the level of &quot;evidence against evolution.&quot;

And of course, there are plenty of open questions about the origins of life ... i.e. how did evolution *start*.   But these do not challenge the fact that evolution is clearly occurring, has been occurring for a very long time (at least 3.5 billion years), and that all modern organisms ... ALL of them ... have in their DNA, the unmistakeable markers of being related by common ancestry.

So &quot;None&quot; is the only honest, valid answer to #3, or else scientists would not support it as strongly as they do.   Scientists are not idiots or frauds.

Answer 5

&gt; &quot;1. Do you agree with evolution.&quot;

Yes.

&gt; &quot;2. What is the evidence to support evolution&quot;

Multifold. Some of the areas providing supporting evidence are:

[1] Paleontology.

Fossils are found which show a clear progression of evolutionary changes (the evolution of the horse, for example). Different organisms arise and become extinct at different points through history (no rabbits in the Precambrian era, for example)

[2] Comparative Anatomy.

Homologous structures have derived from the same basic model - like the pentadactyl limb of all terrestrial vertebrates, or insect mouthparts. Organisms retain vestigial structures that are no longer of any use (like the appendix, wisdom teeth, and the plantaris muscle in humans).

[3] Biogeography.

More closely-related organisms are most often found near to each other - like the marsupials (and no placental mammals) in Australia.

[4] Comparative Biochemistry.

Closely-related organisms share similar biochemistries. Like New World primates having only 2-colour vision, while Old World primates (inclusing humans) have 3-colour vision.

All organisms have the same genetic code - not just that they use the same 4 bases in their DNA, but that the same 3-base codons code for the *same* amino acids.

[5] Comparative Genetics.

Furthermore, DNA sequences vary according to the &quot;relatedness&quot; of organisms in a manner which correlates *exactly* with anatomical changes. This also occurs in non-coding &quot;junk&quot; DNA, where there is exactly zero reason for the variation to have occured, unless caused by evolutionary changes and genetic drift.

[6] Observed evolution.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Pesticide resistance in mosquitoes. The new &#039;flu virus every year. Industrial melanism of the peppered moth. Observed speciation in laboratory strains of Drosophila fruitflies, in the Hawthorn fly, in E. coli bacteria in long-term evolution studies, in the evening primrose after hybridization and polyploidy, and more.

&gt; &quot;3. what is the evidence against evolution&quot;

I know you asked us to not say &quot;none&quot; - but that really is the only answer that can be given here.

There is no evidence against evolution.

Some things people (wrongly) claim as evidence against evolution include:

[1] the impossibility of &quot;spontaneous generation&quot;, as demonstrated by Louis Pasteur.

This is (possible) evidence against abiogenesis - the origin of life. But since evolution is not about the ORIGIN of life, but about how life CHANGES, this is not evidence against evolution.

[2] Fossils with new body forms appear suddenly in the fossil record, demonstrating that the slow process of evolution cannot be happening.

&quot;Suddenly&quot; here is in GEOLOGICAL timescales - so in the Cambrian Explosion, where many new forms appear &quot;suddenly&quot; - the process actually took 80 million years, which is hardly &quot;sudden&quot;.

[3] We have never observed evolution. We have bred dogs, but they are still all capable of interbreeding.

Firstly, we *have* observed evolution; we have even observed speciation (see my supporting point [6]). Secondly, slower-reproducing animals - like dogs - take much longer to evolve, so we should not expect to observe evolution in them within the timescales quoted.

[4] All mutations are harmful or neutral - there are no examples of beneficial mutations.

Blatantly untrue. An obvious example is the CCR5 chemokine receptor in humans (a protein involved in immunity). A mutated version, with a portion missing renders you immune to HIV/AIDS.

[5] There are no mechanisms for introducing new information into a gene pool.

Except, of course, there are. Gene duplications and chromosomal nondisjunctions/polyploidy are two simple examples of such mechanisms.

Answer 6

1. Inconsequential

2. A vast array. Read any decent biology book

3. There is none

Answer 7

1. Do I agree with science? Of course, who wouldn&#039;t?

2. Tons of fossil evidence, DNA evidence, etc...

3. None, if there was any evidence evolution was false we wouldn&#039;t be having this conversation. Evolution is a well documented and observed fact. The theory of evolution is the only thing that can be debated, it is our understanding of evolution, not whether or not it exists. It is analogous to gravity. Gravity is a well documented and observed fact. The theory of gravity is our best explanation of this phenomenon, it does not cast doubt on the existence of gravity.