Evidence for Macroevolution (Common Descent)

[leibowde84]

I often hear creationists admit that there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but claim that there is not any evidence for macroevolution (at or above the species level). But, I don't understand how they get to such an incorrect position.

Common descent is the scientific theory, confirmed by repeated experimentation and observation, stating that all living things come from a common ancestor (namely bacteria).

One commonality among creationist arguments is persistence that the cambrian explosion, which lasted between 20-30 million years, somehow contradicts the theory of evolution. But, in fact, it supports the theory in that many different species evolved from a fewer amount of species (speciation), obviously showing that life evolves and new species come about due to mutation and natural selection.

The following is a great source that shows very clearly common descent is not only reliable, but supported by every piece of available evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

So, my question is this: There is an abundance of evidence that supports the theory of macroevolution / common descent. Is there any verifiable/objective evidence that contradicts it?

 

[Skwim]

So, my question is this: There is an abundance of evidence that supports the theory of macroevolution / common descent.

Yes there is.

Is there any verifiable/objective evidence that contradicts it?

None that I've ever seen.

.

 

[shmogie]

I often hear creationists admit that there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but claim that there is not any evidence for macroevolution (at or above the species level). But, I don't understand how they get to such an incorrect position.

Common descent is the scientific theory, confirmed by repeated experimentation and observation, stating that all living things come from a common ancestor (namely bacteria).

One commonality among creationist arguments is persistence that the cambrian explosion, which lasted between 20-30 million years, somehow contradicts the theory of evolution. But, in fact, it supports the theory in that many different species evolved from a fewer amount of species (speciation), obviously showing that life evolves and new species come about due to mutation and natural selection.

The following is a great source that shows very clearly common descent is not only reliable, but supported by every piece of available evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

So, my question is this: There is an abundance of evidence that supports the theory of macroevolution / common descent. Is there any verifiable/objective evidence that contradicts it?[/QUO Two questions. Where on earth are there any species/types that are identified as such, that also have obvious transitional forms that are evolving into a different species ? Shouldn't they exist, based upon the amount of different fauna and flora that allegedly went through this process multiple times ? Why is the fossil record so devoid of all the link type transitional forms that must have existed in massive numbers from the alleged original bacteria to the abundance of different types we see today ?

 

[leibowde84]

Two questions. Where on earth are there any species/types that are identified as such, that also have obvious transitional forms that are evolving into a different species? All species are transitional, as mutations and natural selection are constantly changing them over vast amounts of time. Obviously there isn't immediate change where magically an offspring is a different species from its parents. It is extremely gradual.

Here is a great explanation (Transitional forms):
Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.


Shouldn't they exist, based upon the amount of different fauna and flora that allegedly went through this process multiple times? They do exist. You are forgetting that they are transitioning into species that don't exist yet. Species are constantly changing/evolving into different species that don't yet exist.

Why is the fossil record so devoid of all the link type transitional forms that must have existed in massive numbers from the alleged original bacteria to the abundance of different types we see today? It isn't. That is a myth. There is a plethora of transitional fossils that support the theory of common descent.

 

[Nietzsche]

Two questions. Where on earth are there any species/types that are identified as such, that also have obvious transitional forms that are evolving into a different species ? Shouldn't they exist, based upon the amount of different fauna and flora that allegedly went through this process multiple times ? Why is the fossil record so devoid of all the link type transitional forms that must have existed in massive numbers from the alleged original bacteria to the abundance of different types we see today ?

Everything is a transitional form. There is no "end result" in evolution, just "whatever exists right now".

 

[leibowde84]

Everything is a transitional form. There is no "end result" in evolution, just "whatever exists right now".

Well-put. It seems that people who ask that question don't take the time to understand what the term "transitional form" actually entails. It's sad really.

 

[shmogie]

Everything is a transitional form. There is no "end result" in evolution, just "whatever exists right now".

Really ? Then there are NO organisms transitioning between species/types. OK, but isn't macro evolution based upon chance mutations that ultimately overwhelm a species, change it in phases to a different species ? Where are any species populations being overwhelmed by by a more effective mutation ? Where are those species changing to another ? where are those species mutations that should be there ? What exists right now are species/types that show no mutation overwhelming and certainly species evolving into another. There are no evolved sea creatures leaving the sea, or vice versa. The alleged creature that returned to the sea ultimately as marine mammals is represented by a few fossils of a four legged creature that weighed about 60 pounds. No sir, your answer is perhaps verbally pleasing, but it does nothing to support Darwin or the concept of Macro evolution. If all organisms are in a transitional form, why even bother with classifications, and why are all these transitional forms not transitioning beyond their species/type ?

 

[shmogie]

Two questions. Where on earth are there any species/types that are identified as such, that also have obvious transitional forms that are evolving into a different species? All species are transitional, as mutations and natural selection are constantly changing them over vast amounts of time. Obviously there isn't immediate change where magically an offspring is a different species from its parents. It is extremely gradual.

Here is a great explanation (Transitional forms):
Transitional forms

Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

As you can see to the left, each branch tip on the tree of horse evolution indicates a different genus, though the feet of only a few genera are illustrated to show the reduction of toes through time.


Shouldn't they exist, based upon the amount of different fauna and flora that allegedly went through this process multiple times? They do exist. You are forgetting that they are transitioning into species that don't exist yet. Species are constantly changing/evolving into different species that don't yet exist.

Why is the fossil record so devoid of all the link type transitional forms that must have existed in massive numbers from the alleged original bacteria to the abundance of different types we see today? It isn't. That is a myth. There is a plethora of transitional fossils that support the theory of common descent.

A plethora? really, can you number the plethora and indicate what species in transition they represent ? So, as I recall, the creature you show as a transitional form of land mammal to sea mammal has four legs and is alleged to have been a swamp feeder, unless this is a different one. what if I find other creatures that share the characteristics you point out, maybe some alive today, are they too transitioning to whales ? As to the example re horses, aren't they still horses though their feet have changed ? if so, I have never doubted that species can adapt to environment, it is called micro evolution.Now, if you could find a flying horse, or a unicorn. or even a population of horses that are predators and eat meat, THAT would be something.

 

[shmogie]

Well-put. It seems that people who ask that question don't take the time to understand what the term "transitional form" actually entails. It's sad really.

Please enlighten me, since you apparently mean me, what does the definition of a transitional form entail ?

 

[VioletVortex]

That's a hard one for me to answer. I have my doubts towards macroevlotion, but only on an interspecies scale. That would imply that each species has its own origins, but for now, that is completely clandestine. How would a species spring forth? Perhaps I could see that occurring with viruses and maybe bacteria, but definitely not a full fledged multicellular organism. That sounds far fetched.

I can't answer this question decisively. I do not consider myself a creationist, though.

 

[Skwim]

Please enlighten me, since you apparently mean me, what does the definition of a transitional form entail ?

There's another thread currently being discussed

Is providing data to creationists a waste of time?​

And almost all of the responses amount to a YES. So if you don't get much of reply this is probably the reason.

.

 

[Nietzsche]

Really ? Then there are NO organisms transitioning between species/types.

Each new generation is slightly different from the one that preceded it due to the way sexual reproduction works. Each new generation has ever so slight differences, and over very long periods of time these are compounded into (potentially) radical divergences.

OK, but isn't macro evolution based upon chance mutations that ultimately overwhelm a species, change it in phases to a different species ? Where are any species populations being overwhelmed by by a more effective mutation ? Where are those species changing to another ? where are those species mutations that should be there ? What exists right now are species/types that show no mutation overwhelming and certainly species evolving into another.

Evolution is not a handful of large, radical mutations. Or at least, it is extremely rarely large, radical mutations. Instead, it's countless minute changes over huge swathes of time that coalesce into large differences on a species-wide scale. Remember, mutations are only passed down through reproduction, and even then that is only a few members of the species in the beginning. What has to happen is that these mutations, again over very long periods of time, filter down because these small changes allow for the individuals that have them to do slightly better than their competitors. They have a few more offspring.

But, over time, these things add up. Think of evolution like you would erosion. Wind and rain slowly whittle down a rock face, and while it's almost imperceptible to those observing it, over many, many years it adds up. Evolution is about the long-game.

There are no evolved sea creatures leaving the sea, or vice versa. The alleged creature that returned to the sea ultimately as marine mammals is represented by a few fossils of a four legged creature that weighed about 60 pounds. No sir, your answer is perhaps verbally pleasing, but it does nothing to support Darwin or the concept of Macro evolution. If all organisms are in a transitional form, why even bother with classifications, and why are all these transitional forms not transitioning beyond their species/type ?

The problem here seems to be that you're misinformed regarding what evolution is. This isn't your fault, but it makes it difficult to explain.

 

[Thief]

I often hear creationists admit that there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but claim that there is not any evidence for macroevolution (at or above the species level). But, I don't understand how they get to such an incorrect position.

Common descent is the scientific theory, confirmed by repeated experimentation and observation, stating that all living things come from a common ancestor (namely bacteria).

One commonality among creationist arguments is persistence that the cambrian explosion, which lasted between 20-30 million years, somehow contradicts the theory of evolution. But, in fact, it supports the theory in that many different species evolved from a fewer amount of species (speciation), obviously showing that life evolves and new species come about due to mutation and natural selection.

The following is a great source that shows very clearly common descent is not only reliable, but supported by every piece of available evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

So, my question is this: There is an abundance of evidence that supports the theory of macroevolution / common descent. Is there any verifiable/objective evidence that contradicts it?

common decent?....as in....one couple that were some how different?
and we humans descended from that item?

or we have always been the same and the diversity we now see has no explanation?

 

[Thief]

Well-put. It seems that people who ask that question don't take the time to understand what the term "transitional form" actually entails. It's sad really.

transitional form?
as in transforming a Man to an item different than he was when found
and then cloning that transformed item to keep the alteration in play?

 

[leibowde84]

common decent?....as in....one couple that were some how different?
and we humans descended from that item?

or we have always been the same and the diversity we now see has no explanation?

Did you read it. The common ancestor of all life is bacteria. All like traces back to bacteria.

 

[leibowde84]

transitional form?
as in transforming a Man to an item different than he was when found
and then cloning that transformed item to keep the alteration in play?

"Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

 

[Thief]

Did you read it. The common ancestor of all life is bacteria. All like traces back to bacteria.

that's fine.....but at some point.....
Man

 

[Thief]

"Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

and that's ok too.....

but nothing in this thread can take away the report of the garden event

Man was altered

 

[leibowde84]

that's fine.....but at some point.....
Man

OK. What's your point? There wasn't like a first homo sapien couple that existed all of a sudden. So, what's your point?

 

[leibowde84]

and that's ok too.....

but nothing in this thread can take away the report of the garden event

Man was altered

Well, it proves that there was never an Adam and Eve.