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

A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

So, is this gonna be archived, or is this the rough draft of a potential archive, or what?

Interestingly, just got email from edX with recomendation in some new classes, and this one being very interesting...

Introduction to Human Evolution (Wellesley)

About this course

As contemporary humans, we are a product of our evolutionary past. That past can be directly observed through the study of the human fossil record, the materials preserved for archaeological study, and the DNA of living and extinct human populations. This course will provide an overview of human evolutionary history from the present--contemporary human variation in a comparative context--through our last common ancestor with the living great apes, some 5-7 million years in the past. Emphasis will be placed on major evolutionary changes in the development of humans and the methodological approaches used by paleoanthropologists and related investigators to develop that knowledge.

The course will begin by asking basic questions about how evolution operates to shape biological variation and what patterns of variation look like in living humans and apes. We will then look at how the human lineage first began to differentiate from apes, the rise and fall of the Australopithecines, the origin and dispersal of the genus Homo, and eventually the radical evolutionary changes associated with the development of agricultural practices in the past 15,000 years. Throughout the course students will be exposed to the primary data, places and theories that shape our understanding of human evolution.

What you'll learn

- How the forces of evolution shape patterns of biological variation
- The major events in human evolutionary history
- How humans can model how evolution works
- Details of the human fossil, archaeological, and genetic records
- The methods scientists use to reconstruct evolutionary history

Should be made as prerequisite to comment evolution....

a reply to: SuperFrog

Thanks - great link! Prerequisite - I like the idea - unfortunately, you can't get most of the Creationist crowd to even read the scientific literature. ATS is about denying ignorance. But some choose it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
So, is this gonna be archived, or is this the rough draft of a potential archive, or what?

Well ATS forums are limited in how you can organize a thread. So as new additions to the library are made, I have to quote the original, add the new stuff and repost. I emailed a mod about it and as long as we're adding, then I have to repost. If the day comes when the library is finished, then I can request that a mod make it a closed sticky at the top. But I prefer the idea of continually adding member's links and topics.

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

That's wild! Will put it in the library. Thanks for posting the info.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm not entirely sure but is this Elysia Chlorotica
sea slug at least evidence of evolution and possibly cross speciation

this sea slug has developed the ability to steal genes from the phytoplankton that it consumes in order to survive
it steals the cholorplast genes which give it the ability to harness the suns energy when food is in short supply and also protects it against predators by turning it green so it looks like a plant.

I'm not entirely sure this counts but hey its part plant part animal .

I know from biology at uni that the Mitochondria started out life out with prokaryotic cells and eventually through endosymbiosis it was part of the cellular make up of eukaryotic cells

So at some point down the line the sea slug will eventually just make its own cholorplasts instead of having to eat the phytoplankton and steal the genes. ?

We have a first! Someone who has provided actual scientific data to the "library".

Although, I would thing that horizontal genetic transfer falls outside the definition of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

None the less, kudos to you!

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Isurrender73
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.

Sure, we know from DNA evidence that we share genes with most of other living organisms. Whole new exiting field has formed, called comparative genomics, you can read more about it here...

www.genome.gov...

Some interesting research...

science.nasa.gov...


It is stupid and childish to ask for process that we know that takes millions of years to happen to 'physically observe', but thanks to genetics, fossils, we can see product of some mix... for example this little creature...

Since it is possible to theorize other processes that could lead to genetic changes that are not encompassed by the MES, processes such as horizontal gene transfer, genetic engineering by intelligent agency and epigenetic expression, isn't it "childish" to say that such 'after the fact' observation is proof of MES. To do so one must have disproof that these other mechanisms were not in play.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Masterjaden

Well seeing many who believe in God understand evolution and know it to be fact and there is no such word as an evolutionist
all of that post was poppycock.

www.urbandictionary.com...

Evolution has evidence Religion has none.

Just because you can not understand evolution doesn't mean it is not true. Here watch this (you will not even grasp what it is saying but you never know).

But surely there are "evolutionists" just as there are "creationists".

I have been called a creationist because I believe that God is behind biodiversity, physical creation of the universe and abiogenesis. I also believe that the mechanisms underlying evolution are, and have been, used by God in creation (I believe that God is still doing it right now, He didn't stop). In that sense, I am both a creationist and a believer in evolutionary process. But by no means do I believe that evolution (& specifically MES) can even explain current observed biodiversity (It is too simplistic and reductionist). It is clear tome that evolution is not the ONLY answer.

By my definition, "Evolutionists" have some sort of fear of religious belief and use any scientific concept (including evolution) as a justification for their position. To them, anything that appears to provide a rational reason for an action in nature is a 'proof' that God does not exist.

I would posit that the rationality, order, logicality and mathematical nature of nature does NOT speak of random process. If such is the case, what alternates are there to random chance as the organizer of nature?

originally posted by: Wolfenz
Ill just throw this here

Wing Evolution
www.dinosaur-world.com...


I think a little of both evolution and creation intelligent design ,

and No God Is needed , we should look within ourselves or itself for
the Answers instead of looking out & UP or some thinking of
Imaginary Being ( ___ place God / Deity here ___)
or perhaps a Civilization type III being that did come another
place, a placethat is not from here form our Solar System ,
whether another solar system or dimension

Look at Us Humans of What we are Doing NOW!

In BIO Mechanics , BIO Engineering, BIO Computing ,
and BIO PRINTING!!! Gene Splicing , Modification ,
Altering Flora and Fauna and we are not even on the Civilization
Type 1 Scale yet.

and you may think if there is Solar Systems out there
way Older then our solar system ,
and that's a thousand to Millions of years Start ( Ahead)

Evolution is a Game Change for Cells Adapting to the
Surrounding Environment .

and for creationism !

we have useless parts still remaining from our
Ancient Ancestral Past, where if we were Creation from
scratch we shouldn't have any of the slightest left overs, nor
have any Genetic deformity's, mentally or physically
they should not exist Period! yet they do.

Humans have Useless Body parts some partial function or
or some Dormant, and some non functioning ,
able to movie Ears , sinus , growing tail , a fraction
of third eyelid, etc

10 Useless Human Body Parts: What You Do And Don't Need
www.medicaldaily.com...

Useless Body Parts
What do we need sinuses for, anyway?
discovermagazine.com...



Dino-Chicken Gets One Step Closer
by Laura Geggel, Staff Writer | May 19, 2015 12:50pm ET
www.livescience.com...


Images: How the Bird Beak Evolved
by Jeanna Bryner, Live Science Managing Editor | May 12, 2015 06:19am ET
www.livescience.com...





Chickens with DINOSAUR feet: Birds grown to have prehistoric legs reveal how running reptiles morphed into perching fliers

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... iers.html#ixzz3knPZYcip
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

www.dailymail.co.uk... iers.html
www.livescience.com...

This topic thread is about scientific proofs of evolution. A library of fact.

Why are you trying to prove there is no need for God? Do you believe it is pertinent to the topic?

originally posted by: Phantom423

Updates

How does the fine tuning of the universe relate to evolution?

It would appear that you, the OP, are going off topic.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's important to differentiate what can be known and what can't. As I have said many times, science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. There's no secret sauce. There's no cabal organizing and inserting information. It's all about the evidence. You turn on your light in the morning. The depth of information in that light bulb that scientists have uncovered is astounding. And that's just a light bulb. And there's still more to research and discover. It never ends. That's the way nature (or your God) intended it to be for humans. It's a never ending process of discovery.

In your next post you mentioned the video in which Leonard Susskind was interviewed about "fine tuning". Well, that's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? The discovery process takes us in many different directions. An evolutionary scientist and a car mechanic have a lot in common. Why? Because they're both using the tools they have to solve a problem and maybe come up with a better answer. Listen to the video again without a bias. I am biased because Leonard Susskind is one of my heroes. Very often he would turn around to the class in a lecture and admit that something made no sense to him either! All his lectures are on YouTube if you're interested.

Challenging conventional wisdom is a good thing. Just remember that just like the light bulb that you are 99.9% sure won't blow up when you turn it on, science is all about evidence. There was enough evidence that the light bulb won't blow up. At this point, there's enough evidence that the process of evolution is a valid assumption for life on this planet. Anyone who comes up with a different theory must stand up to the plate and present the evidence. If it blows up, well............

I think we're putting together some good stuff in the library. I'm going to setup a screencast link with the updated library by topic including the videos. This way members can click on a single link from any post that I make which will be in proper order.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

It's important to differentiate what can be known and what can't. As I have said many times, science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. There's no secret sauce. There's no cabal organizing and inserting information. It's all about the evidence. You turn on your light in the morning. The depth of information in that light bulb that scientists have uncovered is astounding. And that's just a light bulb. And there's still more to research and discover. It never ends. That's the way nature (or your God) intended it to be for humans. It's a never ending process of discovery.

In your next post you mentioned the video in which Leonard Susskind was interviewed about "fine tuning". Well, that's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? The discovery process takes us in many different directions. An evolutionary scientist and a car mechanic have a lot in common. Why? Because they're both using the tools they have to solve a problem and maybe come up with a better answer. Listen to the video again without a bias. I am biased because Leonard Susskind is one of my heroes. Very often he would turn around to the class in a lecture and admit that something made no sense to him either! All his lectures are on YouTube if you're interested.

Challenging conventional wisdom is a good thing. Just remember that just like the light bulb that you are 99.9% sure won't blow up when you turn it on, science is all about evidence. There was enough evidence that the light bulb won't blow up. At this point, there's enough evidence that the process of evolution is a valid assumption for life on this planet. Anyone who comes up with a different theory must stand up to the plate and present the evidence. If it blows up, well............

Fair enough, but despite agreement with Susskind (he is articulate and has considered things in great depth), the topic is better suited in refuting the need for God as a prime cause (of everything).

Perhaps this is a nod towards the majority religious bias of those to whom you would be arguing your point, but in truth it says nothing specifically that could be held as a proof of evolution.

a reply to: Phantom423

Perhaps as an unusual argument for evolution, I would mention the philosophical and theological works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

He was a Jesuit priest, an evolutionary theorist, palentologist and biological scientist who was described by Julian Huxley (who first described the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) as a prime contributor to the synthesis.

Teilhard de Chardin's works integrate evolution into religious philosophy and is currently considered to be a guiding theological concept supported by the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Wikipedia

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

It's important to differentiate what can be known and what can't. As I have said many times, science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. There's no secret sauce. There's no cabal organizing and inserting information. It's all about the evidence. You turn on your light in the morning. The depth of information in that light bulb that scientists have uncovered is astounding. And that's just a light bulb. And there's still more to research and discover. It never ends. That's the way nature (or your God) intended it to be for humans. It's a never ending process of discovery.

In your next post you mentioned the video in which Leonard Susskind was interviewed about "fine tuning". Well, that's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? The discovery process takes us in many different directions. An evolutionary scientist and a car mechanic have a lot in common. Why? Because they're both using the tools they have to solve a problem and maybe come up with a better answer. Listen to the video again without a bias. I am biased because Leonard Susskind is one of my heroes. Very often he would turn around to the class in a lecture and admit that something made no sense to him either! All his lectures are on YouTube if you're interested.

Challenging conventional wisdom is a good thing. Just remember that just like the light bulb that you are 99.9% sure won't blow up when you turn it on, science is all about evidence. There was enough evidence that the light bulb won't blow up. At this point, there's enough evidence that the process of evolution is a valid assumption for life on this planet. Anyone who comes up with a different theory must stand up to the plate and present the evidence. If it blows up, well............

Fair enough, but despite agreement with Susskind (he is articulate and has considered things in great depth), the topic is better suited in refuting the need for God as a prime cause (of everything).

Perhaps this is a nod towards the majority religious bias of those to whom you would be arguing your point, but in truth it says nothing specifically that could be held as a proof of evolution.

Perhaps this is a nod towards the majority religious bias of those to whom you would be arguing your point, but in truth it says nothing specifically that could be held as a proof of evolution.

I'm glad you made that point. Here's why: We're not arguing with religion and we're not arguing with God or Gods. We're arguing Creationism which has nothing to do with conventional religions and is, at least in my opinion, a cult.

That said, if you can design an experiment to prove the existence of God or that there is a designer, which complies with the rules of the scientific method and can be reproduced by other scientists then you are free to do so.

All the hard evidence for evolution is staring you in the face. It's posted in the library. There are 156,000+ research papers which contain massive amounts of data which confirms the process of evolution. But you choose to ignore them. I can't help you there. You choose ignorance, that's your problem.

If you design an experiment which produces hard evidence for your position, then we can talk. Remember, we're talking science here, not philosophy, not psychology, not documents which have no substantiation in reality. We're talking the light bulb that I mentioned in my previous post.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

originally posted by: Phantom423


SECTION II

ATS Library of Scientific Evidence for Evolution


CATEGORY

MUTATIONS: The Raw Material of Evolution

A MUTATION is defined as the process by which a gene changes from one allele to another and the end result of that allelic change.

Major changes can take place with only a small rearrangement of base pairs on the DNA strand, either due to errors in DNA replication or from outside damage to the DNA.

The difference between adaptation and evolution!

1. Adaptation is short-term change (via gene expression) in response to environmental factors; it does not (usually) involve permanent genetic change. (Caution: recall epigenesis!)
2. Organic Evolution is a shift in allele frequencies in a population (microevolution) which can ultimately lead to speciation (macroevolution) under certain circumstances.

Individuals ADAPT. (They do not evolve.)
Populations EVOLVE.

Only evolution involves overall change in allele frequencies and genetic composition of the main unit of evolution: the population.


Key ideas:

mutations can occur "spontaneously" due to errors in DNA replication or other "spontaneous" DNA damage.
mutations can also be induced by outside factors.
A mutagen is an agent which increases the frequency of mutagenesis (the generation of mutations), usually by changing the DNA. (note: a carcinogen is a mutagen which causes a carcinoma--a cancer of the epithelial tissues)
Also note that there's a big difference in the consequences of SOMATIC (body cell) mutations and GERMLINE (reproductive cell) mutations.

Germline Mutations:
Mutations affecting the germ (spermatogonial or oogonial) cells are the only mutations with evolutionary consequences.

Somatic mutations:
Mutations that occur in the somatic cells may disrupt the function of that particular cell, causing it to die, or causing it to become cancerous (highly proliferative and nasty!).

Contributed by Phantom423

CATEGORY

GENERAL EDUCATION

Introduction to Human Evolution

Explore human evolutionary history through the human fossil, archaeological and genetic records.

About this course

As contemporary humans, we are a product of our evolutionary past. That past can be directly observed through the study of the human fossil record, the materials preserved for archaeological study, and the DNA of living and extinct human populations. This course will provide an overview of human evolutionary history from the present--contemporary human variation in a comparative context--through our last common ancestor with the living great apes, some 5-7 million years in the past. Emphasis will be placed on major evolutionary changes in the development of humans and the methodological approaches used by paleoanthropologists and related investigators to develop that knowledge.

www.edx.org... t=title&utm_campaign=Student_Newsletter_September_8
Contributed by SuperFrog

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

It's important to differentiate what can be known and what can't. As I have said many times, science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. There's no secret sauce. There's no cabal organizing and inserting information. It's all about the evidence. You turn on your light in the morning. The depth of information in that light bulb that scientists have uncovered is astounding. And that's just a light bulb. And there's still more to research and discover. It never ends. That's the way nature (or your God) intended it to be for humans. It's a never ending process of discovery.

In your next post you mentioned the video in which Leonard Susskind was interviewed about "fine tuning". Well, that's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? The discovery process takes us in many different directions. An evolutionary scientist and a car mechanic have a lot in common. Why? Because they're both using the tools they have to solve a problem and maybe come up with a better answer. Listen to the video again without a bias. I am biased because Leonard Susskind is one of my heroes. Very often he would turn around to the class in a lecture and admit that something made no sense to him either! All his lectures are on YouTube if you're interested.

Challenging conventional wisdom is a good thing. Just remember that just like the light bulb that you are 99.9% sure won't blow up when you turn it on, science is all about evidence. There was enough evidence that the light bulb won't blow up. At this point, there's enough evidence that the process of evolution is a valid assumption for life on this planet. Anyone who comes up with a different theory must stand up to the plate and present the evidence. If it blows up, well............

Fair enough, but despite agreement with Susskind (he is articulate and has considered things in great depth), the topic is better suited in refuting the need for God as a prime cause (of everything).

Perhaps this is a nod towards the majority religious bias of those to whom you would be arguing your point, but in truth it says nothing specifically that could be held as a proof of evolution.

Perhaps this is a nod towards the majority religious bias of those to whom you would be arguing your point, but in truth it says nothing specifically that could be held as a proof of evolution.

I'm glad you made that point. Here's why: We're not arguing with religion and we're not arguing with God or Gods. We're arguing Creationism which has nothing to do with conventional religions and is, at least in my opinion, a cult.

That said, if you can design an experiment to prove the existence of God or that there is a designer, which complies with the rules of the scientific method and can be reproduced by other scientists then you are free to do so.

All the hard evidence for evolution is staring you in the face. It's posted in the library. There are 156,000+ research papers which contain massive amounts of data which confirms the process of evolution. But you choose to ignore them. I can't help you there. You choose ignorance, that's your problem.

If you design an experiment which produces hard evidence for your position, then we can talk. Remember, we're talking science here, not philosophy, not psychology, not documents which have no substantiation in reality. We're talking the light bulb that I mentioned in my previous post.

But in this post you have stated that I am denying evolution, I am not.

You stated that I am ignoring the research papers supportive of evolutionary processes, I am not (although I have only read a fraction of those papers, as I suspect you have, too).

You also said that I am choosing ignorance, I am not.

You included a video that has nothing at all to do with evolution in your list of evidence.

You therefore have an anti-religious agenda (whether you choose to acknowledge it, or not) and are only using evolution as a thinly supportive crutch for your opinion.

Sorry, but that is the way it appears to me.