Is the Theory of Evolution True?

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Also we can very easily see evolution in action with bacteria and antibiotics

When you have antibiotics, the more the bacteria types become exposed to it, if you do not finish the course of antibi..."

Did new genetic material appear to make it happen or it was due to previously existing genetic material?

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol but the hoof toes fusing tigether due to the different grounds the horse ancestors walke..."

We can see the skelotons underground, the deeper you go into the soil layers, the simpler the bones.

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Also we can very easily see evolution in action with bacteria and antibiotics

When you have antibiotics, the more the bacteria types beco..."

Well, it is adaptations, like you have also said. But the adaptations lead to completely different species when the two cant interbreed

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol but the hoof toes fusing tigether due to the different grounds the horse ..."

Are all these horse ancestors' skeletons found? And if so how can you surely say they were the ancestors of horses? What are the evidences

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol but the hoof t..."

Well because you can track their locations and movements by seeing where else fossils are found, then relate them to horses. They are similar to horses, and their gentic makeup is similar too

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "I also just want to say that evolution does not say that the creation of one species leads to the others dying out

Let us imagine a case where a group of monkeys (idk, random animal) were geograph..."

I would disagree. This is almost sounding like Larmack's use and disuse

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "I also just want to say that evolution does not say that the creation of one species leads to the others dying out

Let us imagine a case ..."

Not necessarily, because the adaptations are being passed down genetically. As we can see in plants today

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol..."

So are you saying morphological similarity points to species being related? And you still haven't answered whether they are all discovered and it is up to you to provide us with the evidence why are they related as in 'fact'

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "I also just want to say that evolution does not say that the creation of one species leads to the others dying out

Let us ..."
So why is lamarck's theory deemed false? He was saying the same thing

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transforming the small, dog-sized,[1] forest-dwelling Eohippus into the modern horse. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete outline of the evolutionary lineage of the modern horse than of any other animal. Much of this evolution took place in North America, where horses originated but became extinct about 10,000 years ago,[2] before being reintroduced in the 15th century.

They belong to same geographical area, yes, their characteristics are similar and that is how we group species even to this day (types of cats for example) and horse have common ancestry of tapirs and rhinoceroses.

The early ancestors of the modern horse walked on several spread-out toes, an accommodation to life spent walking on the soft, moist ground of primeval forests. As grass species began to appear and flourish, the equids' diets shifted from foliage to silicate-rich grasses; the increased wear on teeth selected for increases in the size and durability of teeth. At the same time, as the steppes began to appear, selection favored increase in speed to outrun predators. This ability was attained by lengthening of limbs and the lifting of some toes from the ground in such a way that the weight of the body was gradually placed on one of the longest toes, the third

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "I also just want to say that evolution does not say that the cre..."

1) DNA was not discovered
2) He was saying that it is always passed down to next generation, when it actualy through a very long timescale, and the weakest animals who have not been able to get the best adaptation will die so u able to pass to next gen

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "I also just want to say that evolution does not s..."

I thought in the bacteria example it passed down really quickly

[maryam مريم]

So are you saying morphological similarity points to species being related?

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transforming the small, dog-sized,[1] forest-dwelling Eohippus into the modern h..."
Are all those ancestors discovered?

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb..."

Bacteria is different to animals. Bacteria also reproduce far quicker so looking at that timescale, it probably matches up

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "So are you saying morphological similarity points to species being related?"

No, DNA does. But DNA can be outwardly expressed in morphological similarities

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transforming the smal..."

i assume so

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transf..."

If you are stating it as proof for evolution you cannot state an assumption

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occu..."

You are asking if all ancestors have been discovered. We do not need all of the ancestors to know it is true

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "So are you saying morphological similarity points to species being related?"

No, DNA does. But DNA can be outwardly expressed in morphological similarities"

Okay. Then are all these horse ancestors' DNA similar?

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Yes

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the famil..."

If people can draw up shapes using their imagination ti prove it then we should be able to ask for solid proof. Like how are they sure those things truly existed and why they are the way in their drawings.

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Yes"

Share the evidence. How do they know it?

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Well we are sure because we have the fossils to prove it

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Well we are sure because we have the fossils to prove it"

So are you implying all of them are discovered? Only afterwards, we can see whether their DNA is similar

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Well we are sure because we have the fossils to prove it"

Please share the fossil evidences of horse ancestors and the researches done on them to show how similar their DNA is

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus fo..."

I cannot take this as scientific proof

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...

[Emily, Shadow's Girlie ✞ [hiatus till 26]]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "I also just want to say that evolution does not say that the creation of one species leads to the others dying out

Let us imagine a case where a group of monkeys (idk, random animal) were geograph..."

But they’re still monkeys, which means this is adaptation. They adapted to their new environment so them and their offspring could better survive. Like how would you explain away a sea creature evolving into a human for instance?

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

✧Emily✧ wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "I also just want to say that evolution does not say that the creation of one species leads to the others dying out

Let us imagine a case ..."

Yes it is adaptations. But as the animals are sepearated, they adapt to become different species.

Sea creature -> amphibians -> lizards -> mammals -> humans

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

Scientists are not 100% certain about the theory of evolution, but we have a lot of data and research to back it up. Like MidnightButterfly said, there are DNA similarities and fossils to show it. Here is this Smithsonian Institution article that has links to other stuff involving this topic: https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

[maryam مريم]

Barnette (previously CrazyChickenGirl) wrote: "Scientists are not 100% certain about the theory of evolution, but we have a lot of data and research to back it up. Like MidnightButterfly said, there are DNA similarities and fossils to show it. ..."

I have already posted that this site still has stuff that were disproved. ill copy-paste it here

fossil called Ardi in that link - https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/... it portrays it as ''one of the most complete early human skeletons'' which i think it was first 'thought' to be. later they found ''provides insufficient evidence of an ancestor-descendant relationship and exclusivity to the hominid lineage.'' https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s....

[maryam مريم]

so i don't consider it reliable

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles..."

This is huge. I'll go through this later. But does this have fossil evidence and research done on those fossils to showcase genomic similarity? If not, this is not what I'm asking for. If it is some other imaginary tale woven about it will be a waste of my time.

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

I beleive so, i havent read the whoe thing while prepping for exams haha

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol but the hoof toes fusing tigether due to the different grounds the horse ancestors walked on"

sadly the research article you provided does not speak about Pliohippus, Merychippus or Mesohippus.

[maryam مريم]

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "So are you saying morphological similarity points to species being related?"

No, DNA does. But DNA can be outwardly expressed in morphological similarities"

So genetic similarity should give us morphological similarity. Is that what you are implying?

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol but the hoof toes fusing tigether due to the different grounds the horse ancestors walke..."

Did you read through all that? Haha sorry 😅

[butterfly is back (barely, mostly on insta)]

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Maryam wrote: "So are you saying morphological similarity points to species being related?"

No, DNA does. But DNA can be outwardly expres..."

In most cases?

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

I think it did happen, and there is evidence that it did (i'll write up something more comprehensive and find sources later im busy rn lol)

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Evolution is defined as the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms.

The Theory of Evolution was discovered by Darwin and Wallace (they ‘discovered’ it separately, but were known to have communicated with one another) in the 1800s.


The mechanism of evolution is a process called natural selection. In simple terms, natural selection is the process by which organisms with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to their offspring. Mutations (random changes in the genes of organisms that can result in a difference in observable characteristics) can introduce variation to populations, along with sexual reproduction. Organisms with unfavourable characteristics are less likely to be ‘selected for’ by natural selection, so won’t reproduce and pass on their genes to their offspring. 

It can take many generations for mutations to make a noticeable difference in the observable characteristics (phenotype), therefore evolution is a very slow process that takes many generations. In organisms that reproduce faster, like bacteria and fruit flies, evolution subsequently takes a much shorter time, so can be easily observed.


The theory of evolution has evolved since Darwin and Wallace came up with it, mainly as we now have more scientific knowledge.


Antibiotic resistance 

This is evidence for Evolution by Natural Selection; As bacteria reproduce so quickly, natural selection can be observed easily. Certain bacteria experience a mutation, which makes them resistant to antibiotics. When antibiotics are used, these bacteria survive and can reproduce. Their genes, including the gene for antibiotic resistance, are passed on to their offspring, which are also antibiotic resistant. This process repeats over many generations. A specific example is MRSA (Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus). 


The fossil record

The lower the layer of rock, the older it is- that is, if you have a cliff-face, the rock at the bottom will be older than the rock at the very top. Therefore, the sequence of fossils provides evidence for ‘descent with modification’ -evolution. There are many modern and more accurate methods of measuring the age of rocks, including radiometric dating. The earliest fossils are of micro-organisms such as Cyanobacteria, and have been dated to 3.5 billion years ago. The first vertebrates appeared in the fossil record about 500 million years ago; the first mammals appeared around 250 million years ago.


Anatomy

More evidence for Evolution is the shared presence of specific structures in organisms, even though the structures perform different functions. An example is the bones of humans, whales, birds and dogs. The overall structure is very similar, although they perform different functions. This is evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor, and the bones became different sizes and shapes, but are still similar. Vestigial structures are also evidence of evolution; for example, snakes have a pelvic bone even though they have no legs- this is because they evolved from reptiles which do have legs.


Biogeography 

Broader groups of organisms that evolved before the break up of Pangaea are found worldwide, whereas organisms that evolved after the break up of Pangaea appear only in specific places. Most islands that are isolated by large oceans have endemic species. This is because, over time, these species have evolved from their ancestors on the mainland into different species. Examples include the finches on the Galapagos Islands and marsupials in Australia.


Molecular biology

In the very simplest of terms, the more similar the DNA sequence is of two species, the closer they are evolutionarily related to each other. Mutations build up over time; the longer the time since two species have diverged from their common ancestor, the larger the difference in their DNA sequence. An example of this is the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequence. 


Evolution predicts that beneficial genes will be conserved across different species, and molecular biology supports this claim. Examples of these genes include those involved in replication, transcription, translation etc.  

Every organism uses the same genetic code to synthesise proteins, suggesting all life evolved from a common ancestor that used this type of code.


Pseudogenes are genes that have so many mutations they can no longer produce a protein. These show that mutations do occur and also act as a record for evolutionary history; The closer the similarity in pseudogenes two organisms are, the more recently they shared a common ancestor. 


Sources:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
-This paper describes the gene in Staphylococcus aureus that causes resistance. 

https://www.britannica.com/science/ev...
https://www.clrn.org/how-does-molecul...

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Sorry that took so long to write up, ive been pretty busy this evening

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

Hazel wrote: "Evolution is defined as the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms.

The Theory of Evolution was discovered by ..."

I love how passionate you are about science, this is really well-done!!!

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Jamesie wrote: "First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "..."

According to Nature, the definition of evolution is:
'Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time. Evolution reflects the adaptations of organisms to their changing environments and can result in altered genes, novel traits, and new species. Evolutionary processes depend on both changes in genetic variability and changes in allele frequencies over time.'

Evolution has been observed in E-coli bacteria
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej...
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...
https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/a...

According to Nature, the definition of speciation is 'Speciation is an evolutionary process by which a new species comes into being… Speciation can be driven by evolution, which is a process that results in the accumulation of many small genetic changes called mutations in a population over a long period of time'
Evolution is NOT speciation.

Speciation:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-ne...
https://today.ucsd.edu/story/biologis...

Experiments showing evolution happening in real time are often conducted on organisms such as bacteria and other organisms that reproduce very quickly. Evolution doesn’t occur in individuals, rather over many generations of successive mutations (and other factors that introduce genetic variation into populations). In most organisms, reproduction is a slow process and generations are long (not sure what other word to use lol), so any observable differences in the phenotype take a longg time to occur. This is why speciation is so difficult to observe. The lack of observable speciation (NOT absence of evidence) is not a failure of the evolutionary failure, more to do with the fact human life-times are very short compared to the time scales evolution and speciation act over :)

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Barnette ⋆˙⟡ {single pringle version} wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Evolution is defined as the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms.

The Theory of Evolution was ..."
Thanks!

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Jamesie wrote: "The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundam..."
These explains the reason evolution doesn't violate entropy way better than i could:
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/Evolu...
https://phys.org/news/2008-08-evoluti...

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

(I'm playing devils advocate for Barnette)
Firstly, why do you believe the theory of evolution to be true, or more factual than the creationist theory?

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

Hazel wrote: "(I'm playing devils advocate for Barnette)
Firstly, why do you believe the theory of evolution to be true, or more factual than the creationist theory?"

We have a huge amount of evidence to support the fact that every species on the world evolved from another, tracing back to single-cell organisms.

One of the main sources of evidence is fossil records. We can find fossils of animals that died millions of years ago and based on carbon dating, body structure including very small clues, and sometimes DNA if it's new enough, we can figure out what time the fossil was from, what species it was, and what modern species it's related to.

Do you have any way of disproving the fossil records?

[Hazel (my girlfriend's version)]

Barnette ⋆˙⟡ wrote: "Hazel wrote: "(I'm playing devils advocate for Barnette)
Firstly, why do you believe the theory of evolution to be true, or more factual than the creationist theory?"

We have a huge amount of evid..."

Firstly, there is a multitude of evidence showing that fossils are indeed only a few thousand years old, ehich directly disproves evolution.
First, carbon 14 has been found in dinosaur bones -carbon 14 has a short half life, so if the bones truly were millions years old, none would be found.
Secondly, soft tissues, DNA and proteins have been found in many fossils. These biological substances should have decayed a long time ago if they were millions of years old, so they must be only a few thousand years old.
Secondly, there are massive gaps in the fossil record. According to evolution, many 'transitional fossils/organisms' should be found. However, there is no definitive proof of these existing. If evolution did happen, where are the 'in-between organisms'?

[Barnette ⋆˙⟡ (my girlfriend's version), Creator, Head Moderator]

Hazel wrote: "Barnette ⋆˙⟡ wrote: "Hazel wrote: "(I'm playing devils advocate for Barnette)
Firstly, why do you believe the theory of evolution to be true, or more factual than the creationist theory?"

We have ..."

We have evidence that iron thingys do a thingy post mortem and are able to preserve dinosaur (and other) tissue better. Here is a quote explaining that from an article you definitely did not send me: "When biological iron, which exists in the thermodynamically unstable Fe2+ state, is released from complexing molecules, it oxidises rapidly, generating free radicals in the conversion from Fe2+ to the more stable and insoluble Fe3+ form. We hypothesise that early in diagenesis, perhaps immediately post mortem, iron-mediated Fenton and glycation pathways contributed to enhanced T. rex tissue longevity by rapidly crosslinking arginine and lysine residues of elastin and fibrillar collagen (and other vascular proteins) within and surrounding the blood vessels."

Gaps in the fossil record do no disprove all of evolution, surely there are time periods and species that did not preserve fossils as well and therefore we do not have examples from then. That doesn't disprove the entire theory or its accuracy.