ATS Library of Scientific Evidence for Evolution - Open to All Members

The intention of this thread is to develop a comprehensive library of scientific evidence supporting evolution. There is a lot of redundancy on this board. The same questions are asked multiple times and the same responses given by others. This library will serve as a convenient link where hard science on evolution can be easily accessed by those who wish to challenge the anti-science members on the board.

Anyone who has challenged Creationism and similar notions which conflict with modern science is free to post their topic. The only request is that you post under the appropriate category or subcategory and include references and citations. This is not about personal opinions.

The categories are general in nature. You can add additional categories or subcategories. For instance:

Category:

Charles Darwin

Subcategories:
1. “Origin of the Species”
2. Were Darwins' methods of observation valid?
3. Citations from recognized scientific journals which support Darwin

Criteria for evidence:

“Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.”
en.wikipedia.org...

1. Evidence must include references and citations with links
2. Any posts you've written on the board which explains your position can be posted as well with a link to the post. Include references to support your position.
3. Illustrations which graphically make a point are encouraged – a picture says a thousand words. Just be sure to cite the author with a link.

I'll make a list of categories tomorrow. In the meantime, anyone who wants to contribute a category and/or subcategory can do so.

I thought it was about time we consolidate all the good information that members have contributed in various threads. It can also be a learning tool for anyone who wants to delve into the real world of evolutionary biology.

a reply to: Phantom423

Is that you Smithsonian Institution?

Lotsa flags and lotsa stars but no evidence

It does seem funny that you have all that support but nothing valid

Should we go on some more

Should I explain my position and comment

You would think that a thread with no comments, no evidence, nothing of substance would receive no flags or stars.
Kinda funny how evolutionists will support something that has nothing valid based on the simple fact that they agree with it, they support it.

I am not sold on evolution, I kind of think there is something missing

I would not flag or star this thread based on what has been offered so far, funny how many others have.

I offer nothing because I have seen nothing

Looking forward to something that might justiy a flag or star.

I flagged and starred because I look forward to the better posters (than me) who will supply the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence.
This thread is not for me to supply evidence, it's for the veteran posters who will do a better job than me.

SnF

a reply to: Raggedyman

I've seen worse get flags and stars.

I find it funny that the first to people to comment against this didn't have much to offer either.

I look forward to what is posted here as well.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Lotsa flags and lotsa stars but no evidence

It does seem funny that you have all that support but nothing valid

Should we go on some more

Should I explain my position and comment

You would think that a thread with no comments, no evidence, nothing of substance would receive no flags or stars.
Kinda funny how evolutionists will support something that has nothing valid based on the simple fact that they agree with it, they support it.

I am not sold on evolution, I kind of think there is something missing

I would not flag or star this thread based on what has been offered so far, funny how many others have.

I offer nothing because I have seen nothing

These facts you point out proves they have a faithful following. They are bowing down in agreement before a jot of material has been added to the thread. Atheism is a strong religion, just look at them stars and flags.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Evolution and atheism are not interchangeable.
Here is just a little tid bit.
evolution.berkeley.edu...

Obligatory that the theory of evolution is not meant to explain how everything came to be, but more of an explanation of what we know to this day.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Evolution and atheism are not interchangeable.
Here is just a little tid bit.
evolution.berkeley.edu...

Obligatory that the theory of evolution is not meant to explain how everything came to be, but more of an explanation of what we know to this day.

Atheists believe in evolution.

Stop kidding yourself.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

So since Atheists believe in evolution then anyone who agrees with the theory of evolution must be Atheist?
Kind of a stretch. That isn't the point of the thread though.
Do you want to add anything that would show that the theory of evolution is misguided?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So since Atheists believe in evolution then anyone who agrees with the theory of evolution must be Atheist?
Kind of a stretch. That isn't the point of the thread though.
Do you want to add anything that would show that the theory of evolution is misguided?

So far no one has added anything valid at all, seems somewhat pointless other than a flag and star collection exercise

I would say judging by this thread alone evolution and the adherents are completely misguided, starring and flagging effectively nothingness.

a reply to: Phantom423

Here is a look at the reality of evolution and the imagination of both evolutionist and creationist.

Things that science needs to prove before a natural cause and evolution past Class/Phylum is anything more than your imagination.

1. Abiogenesis
2. Single Cell to Multi Cell
3. Physically observe cross Kingdom - a plant physically observed to become an animal. Since plants and animals are both DNA based, either they have a common creator or common ancestor.
4. Physically observe the separation of cellular organisms from asexual to male/female
5. Physically observe an animal cross Phylum
6. Physically observe an animal cross Class
7. Physically observe an animal cross Order
8. Physically observe an animal cross Family
9. Physically observe an organism cross Genius
10. We have observed Speciation.

The genome project

With the genome project science has a chance to use DNA and the genome to determine if we have any chance to understand how evolution may have taken place. Without a complete genome project it's impossible to understand when humanoids branched from a common ancestor with apes. The gnome project also has the task of providing viability of evolution for anything to cross Genius, Family, Order, or Class.

Currently those who are part of the genome project no longer think we descend directly from apes, because the genetic variation between apes and humans. Which means that scientists that are part of the genome project have ruled out Darwin's theory of ape to man and our now looking for a common ancestor.

The imagination of an old earth creationist.

I believe that God created all organisms from single cell organisms to plants and animals according to their Kinds. I believe that Kinds is somewhere between Class and Phylum and most scientists would agree that the lines between Class/Phylum are blurry, something the Genome project should be able to unblurr to some extent.

I personally accept that after Class/Phylum, what I refer to as Kinds, adaptation can account for all evolution from Class to Species.

But currently DNA and the Genome are irreduciby complex. Meaning we have no viable understanding of Abiogenesis. What we have proven is no more than saying that nature can mix chemicals in a pan. Nature's ability to mix chemicals in a pan is a far cry from life forming out of those chemicals.

Without having any evidence that single cell organisms can do anything past adapting to work together, and without any observable evidence that any species is even in the process of crossing Genus to accept evolution takes imagination.

Alien Theory

I might except Abiogenesis without scientific method if we ever find alien life not based on DNA. Since DNA forming on 2 separate planets without having a common origin/creator should be mathematically impossible.

The difference between scientific method and imagination

1.To say male/female evolved from asexual is imagination.

2. To say the eye evolved gradually is imagination.

3. To say that lungs evolved gradually is imagination

4. To say that man and apes had a common ancestor is imagination

5. The list of things one needs to imagine happened to confirm evolutionary theory is nearly endless, as scientific method has been unable to prove anything beyond Speciation.


I have an imagination also.

And my imagination says God created everything according to their Kinds, Kingdom, Phylum/Class. And I believe that humans belong in their own created Kind. Using my imagination in this way is no more intelligent nor ignorant than you using your imagination to fill in the gaps with evolution.

I have said this before, I don't care what science proves in the future, but I wish everyone would accept that science is only fact when it is proven by scientific method. Until evolutionary science, scientific facts have only been noted as factual dating back to the Golden Age of Islam.

Stating that man evolved from a single cell organism is based on faith/imagination at least as much as giving God credit.

But only one of us seems willing to accept that our belief is based on faith and imagination which makes me much more open minded and realistic than most evolutionist.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lotsa flags and lotsa stars but no evidence

Did you even read the OP?

Basically he is saying that people have created the same threads multiple of times asking the same questions which other people have answered over and over and over and over and over again. It's so redundant. We need some kind of system or library that we can just simply link to answer different threads and questions without having to repeat ourselves. It's exhausting.

Like this thread among 10000 of other similar threads for example:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Isurrender73

Abiogenesis

What does that have to do with evolution?

Physically observe

That's called fossils. You can physically observe them. I know what you meant but then again it's like what Ken Ham said - YOU WEREN'T THERE! Ken Ham didn't realize that he put his foot in his mouth when he said that because he himself wasn't there when God created the Earth and that the flood happened.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Why do evolutionist always ask what does Abiogenesis have to do with evolution? It has nothing to do with evolution, but it has everything to do with creation and I was arguing from the point of view of a creationist.

Did my reply look like it was written by an idiot?

Fossils are more likely to prove that every mountain range on the planet holds fossils only found in ocean life(flood) than to prove evolution.
www.nytimes.com...
climbing.about.com...
answersingenesis.org...

The fossil record is woefully at a loss to provide missing links. We are more likely to prove the plausibility of evolution by looking at living organisms and mapping their genome.

Unless their has been major fossil finds in the recent past that I am unaware of.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Why do evolutionist always ask what does Abiogenesis have to do with evolution?

Because the OP is about evolution not abiogenesis.

Did my thread look like it was written by an idiot?

You mean your post? No you seem to be very intelligent.

Though I'll tell you your post is the very example that the OP was pointing out. People have said the same thing you have said here on ATS millions of times and the same answers have been given.

a reply to: Phantom423

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted

Can you point me toward an evolutionary theory that can explain irreducible complexity?

a reply to: rockintitz

Oh my goodness. Why doesn't anyone ever read the OP?

This is not a debate on Creationism and Evolution.

Nice try and idea op.
Pity the deniers have already jumped in adding nothing. Oh and the obe addibg nothing and moaning about flags?.
Reaaly?.
Nice try again op.
SnF.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Isurrender73

Why do evolutionist always ask what does Abiogenesis have to do with evolution?

Because the OP is about evolution not abiogenesis.

Did my thread look like it was written by an idiot?

You mean your post? No you seem to be very intelligent.

Though I'll tell you your post is the very example that the OP was pointing out. People have said the same thing you have said here on ATS millions of times and the same answers have been given.

To simply ignore Abiogenesis gives no credence to natural origins leading to evolution nor creation leading to evolution.

I believe it is good to make clear what side of the Abiogenesis argument evolutionist are arguing from. There are religious evolutionist that look at DNA and say it had to be created and there are atheist who claim natural origin.

So I believe that Abiogenesis, although it needs not be proven to be natural to prove evolution, it is good to understand where ones faith/imagination lies.

And I believe my post pointed out both what scientific method has proven and what it has not proven. I read the OP and wanted it to be clear why I believe that creationism is not an opinion based in ignorance.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The intention of this thread is to develop a comprehensive library of scientific evidence supporting evolution.

My bad.. I should not have brought up something so different from the OP's stated goal.

Chat amongst yourselves.