Discussion and drafts for the evolution archive

There always is and always will be evolution/creation debates on OT. I was just thinking that a thread (perhaps a sticky) could be made with resources to help defend against common creationist arguments. It could be organized under specific headings i.e. "quote mining out of context", "examples of transitional fossils", "concerning blood in dinosaur fossils".

So say if a creationist on OT says "evolution is just a theory" you could head to the thread look under "concerning scientific theories and facts" and then have a quick, ready response.

I know that this would be a pretty big thread but it might just come in handy for the future and of course it could be added to gradually over time.

So... good idea, bad idea, yae or nay.

EDIT: If you have any contributions to make post them here so that they can be reviewed and then okayed for the actual archive.

Good idea. It's a big job so let's get started.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

( Could an officer linkify this for me, I don't know how).

This site has huge amounts of information, pretty much proving every creationist claim as nonsense.

Anybody else feel free to add anything.

I think it's a good idea. However, I don't think we should aim towards arguing creationism, just Young Earth creationism. Some theists are evolutionary creationists.Genetic_Code

Point taken. We'll just concentrate on presenting evolution as it stands and leave the interpretation up to others.

I figure that I'll make another thread with the actual info and this one can just be for discussion and drafts etc. I'll start getting some famous quotes from scientists who seem to reject evolution (like Steven Jay Gould) and then I'll show how those quotes are taken out of context.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I think it's a good idea. However, I don't think we should aim towards arguing creationism, just Young Earth creationism. Some theists are evolutionary creationists.domatron23

Point taken. We'll just concentrate on presenting evolution as it stands and leave the interpretation up to others.

I figure that I'll make another thread with the actual info and this one can just be for discussion and drafts etc. I'll start getting some famous quotes from scientists who seem to reject evolution (like Steven Jay Gould) and then I'll show how those quotes are taken out of context.

I don't believe Gould ever rejected evolution.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I think it's a good idea. However, I don't think we should aim towards arguing creationism, just Young Earth creationism. Some theists are evolutionary creationists.STWELCH

Point taken. We'll just concentrate on presenting evolution as it stands and leave the interpretation up to others.

I figure that I'll make another thread with the actual info and this one can just be for discussion and drafts etc. I'll start getting some famous quotes from scientists who seem to reject evolution (like Steven Jay Gould) and then I'll show how those quotes are taken out of context.

I don't believe Gould ever rejected evolution.

He rejected gradualism while he was discussing punctuated equilibrium. Creationists like to take that out of context and act like his comments on the fossil record constitute the weakness of the evidence for evolution. Black quoted this one recently:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils"

But left out the bit immediately following it:

"Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.'

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."

Talkorigins has been kind enough to provide a comprehensive refutation of some common examples of quote mining. If you see some of these posted on gamespot be sure to politely remind people that it is a lie from omission to claim that they constitute an uncertainty of evolution in the Scientific community.

This site contains 86 common "quotes by famous evolutionists" referring to- a lack of identifiable phylogeny, Stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record, large gaps in the fossil record and some miscellany. Talk origins provides their original context and meaning here.

You might also see creationists using quotes from Darwin which seem to reveal the shakiness of the theory. A good example might be something like this:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

That's a quote straight from The Origins of Species and on its own it seems like Darwin is expressing doubt in his own theory. Provided the context though we can see that no such doubt is present:

[color=red]"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.[/color] When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. [color=green]Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."[/color]

The Talkorigins Quote Mine Project goes over many quotes from Darwin like this one and provides the full background on it. You can find that page here.

Another favourite of quote-miners is to take the argument between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium out of context. Quite often you will see a quote from the likes of Niles Eldridge or Steven Jay Gould which comments on how poor the fossil record is. There are many such examples of that and of course the context behind it here.

Talkorigins has also gone over some miscellanious out of context quotes here and some ones referring to the geologic column here.

Another source that creationists like to cite when claiming that evolution is disputed by the scientific community is this list. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

EDIT: I have been informed that my description of the scientists from this list was inaccurate. This list actually contains more like 750 signees as opposed to "around about 100". If anyone catches anything else awry in these drafts please be sure to notify us.

It contains around about 100 scientists who agree with this statement: " We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

DonExodus2 has made an excellent video on this list which points out its various flaws

-The statement encourages skepticism, not a rejection of evolution- practically everything should be carefully examined

-The majority of scientists on the list are not biologists, there are only 39 people in the field of biology

-Many of the signees do accept common descent and have requested to be removed from the list

-The list over exaggerates the qualifications of some signees

I'm really glad you're doing this. Quote Mining is by far the most insidious and intellectually dishonest practice among the various Creationist think tanks. Even the standard strawmen and skewed semantics can at least be attributed to a simple misunderstanding of what Evolution is (coupled with a lack of interest in understanding it any better), but to properly mine a quote necessarily requires a direct and deliberate will to obfuscate the truth before an innocent, ignorant and consequently vulnerable audience.

I suppose they think their god will forgive them for lying, on account of it being a means to an end, but surely if Evolution were so easily debunked, there would be no shortage of, say, honest approaches to doing so? Right?

Didn't think so.

I'm really glad you're doing this. Quote Mining is by far the most insidious and intellectually dishonest practice among the various Creationist think tanks. Even the standard strawmen and skewed semantics can at least be attributed to a simple misunderstanding of what Evolution is (coupled with a lack of interest in understanding it any better), but to properly mine a quote necessarily requires a direct and deliberate will to obfuscate the truth before an innocent, ignorant and consequently vulnerable audience.

I suppose they think their god will forgive them for lying, on account of it being a means to an end, but surely if Evolution were so easily debunked, there would be no shortage of, say, honest approaches to doing so? Right?

Didn't think so.

creepy_mike

There was a thread a while back in OT, think it was called something like "Scientists who believed in God" with bunch of quotes. Most of them were totally out of context of what they were discussing and have said previously and afterwards. Even quoted Einstein in there, like you said it's pretty deceptive and an easy way for some Christians to validate their beliefs.

Domatron great idea by the way, feel free to dole me out a task if you'd like me to look for some information.

Domatron great idea by the way, feel free to dole me out a task if you'd like me to look for some information.

SimpJee

Thanks.

I think before we set to work we might need to organize a set of topics first. Mainly we'll be doing four things, this is a very incomplete and broad list of each one. Feel free to add more points or start research on one area.

-Explaining the principles of evolution very clearly and its implications

What exactly is natural selection?

How does evolution work?

Microevolution vs Macroevolution

Gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium

Variation and mutation

-Presenting the evidence for evolution

Genetics

Fossils

Taxonomy

-Correcting some common misconceptions and refuting the claims of creationism

If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkies today?

Evolution can't make irreducibly complex structures

Why are humans the only ones with such incredible intelligence?

Evolution doesn't explain the beginning of the cosmos and life on earth therefore it's false

Evolution is "only" a theory

There are no transitional fossils

Numerous gaps in the fossil record prove that all existing organisms in the record appeared all at once

-Social aspects of evolution

Evolution promotes racism

Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide

Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings

I think I can tackle a few of these here. I'll start with this one...

-Correcting some common misconceptions and refuting the claims of creationism

If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkies today?

domatron23

In my own words:

1. Actually, in the case of humans and other primates, the consensus is not that one evolved "from" the other, but that we all evolved from a common ancestor that was neither human, ape or monkey.

2. This question is akin to asking "If America was colonized by Englishmen, why are there still Englishmen?", and it demonstrates a fundamental misconception about how speciation works. The theory does not state that all members of a single species will simultaneously morph into another. Rather, speciation is said to occur when one species of organism produces fertile offspring that are no longer capable of reproducing with members of the previous one. This happens via a very common (and repeatedly observed) process of increased genetic variation through basic reproduction, followed by natural selection and/or geographical separation, the latter of which is fully demonstrated in the "Ring Species" phenomenon.

More resources...

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes

********END OF CONTRIBUTION********

Hope that helps. There are a few more points on your list I'd like to have a go at sometime later, as well as some I'd like to introduce now so that maybe someone can begin working before I get a chance to...

-Correcting some common misconceptions and refuting the claims of creationism

- Evolution is "only" a theory.

- There are no transition fossils.

- Numerous gaps in the fossil record prove that all existing organisms in the record appeared all at once.

Oh man, I'm itching to attack those just after writing them! I'll see what I can do in the coming days. Good luck until then!

Under 'Common misconceptions' I'd like to add the claim that "Evolution teaches racism".

Here is my response to this claim:

Evolution promotes racism.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.

Response:

1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
   
   
2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
   
   
3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
   
   
4. Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
   
   
5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.
   
   
6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
   
   
   • George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,

     The poor little fellow who went to the south
     Got lost in the forests dank;
     His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
     And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
     And his mind became a blank.

     In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
     
     
   • During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,

     that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles'.

     The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory.
     
     
   • The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
     
     
   • Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:

     Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241)

Another claim I'd like to add is "Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide". Here is my response:

Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.

Source:

Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.

Response:

1. Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:

   Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. Hitler 1943, 383)

   The first edition of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.) Other passages further support his creationist leanings:

   The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. Hitler 1943, 383)

   and

   What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Hitler 1943, 214)

   Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example:

   Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord Hitler 1943, 65).

   "[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission."

   A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933).

   Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
   
   
2. The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:

   Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)

   On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":

   c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.)

3. Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
   
   
4. Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.

Cheers for the contributions Felix but the evolution archive ought to focus just on supporting evolution rather than attacking creation. I mean if someone asked you for evidence for evolution you wouldn't just say "creationism is stupid". In the same way if you're addressing why the theory of evolution does not teach racism you ought not say "creationism does teach racism".

Furthermore you made a correlation = causation mistake on #3 for the racism post and at #4 you made it seem as if Darwin = evolution.

I might have to edit those a little before they can be included.

Cheers for the contributions Felix but the evolution archive ought to focus just on supporting evolution rather than attacking creation. I mean if someone asked you for evidence for evolution you wouldn't just say "creationism is stupid". In the same way if you're addressing why the theory of evolution does not teach racism you ought not say "creationism does teach racism".

Furthermore you made a correlation = causation mistake on #3 for the racism post and at #4 you made it seem as if Darwin = evolution.

I might have to edit those a little before they can be included.

domatron23

Okay sorry about the mistakes. Could we make a new heading under "Social aspects of evolution"? A lot of the time Creationists bring up the points I listed and other social issues relating to evolution.

Hopefully this could be under the "Social issues and evolution' heading:

Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings.

1. Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
   • Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
   • Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
   • Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
   • Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
   • Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
   • Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
   • Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
   
3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
   
4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
   
5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:

   Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

   The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).

I'm happy to write something, if you want assign me any sections.Junkie_man

I confess that I don't know much about endogenous retroviruses. If you could write something about what they are and how they constitute evidence for evolution I could put it under the genetics section.

[QUOTE="Junkie_man"]I'm happy to write something, if you want assign me any sections.domatron23

I confess that I don't know much about endogenous retroviruses. If you could write something about what they are and how they constitute evidence for evolution I could put it under the genetics section.

Unfortunately, I don't know that off the top of my head, but I will research it and write something

"What is natural selection?"

Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

1. There is variation in traits.
   For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

1. There is differential reproduction.
   Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

1. There is heredity.
   The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

1. End result:
   The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

I put this in an easy way to understand. Domatron if you want a more detailed one just ask.

"How does evolution work?"

Evolution is a process in which life is shaped by the environment it lives in. All living things have genes, which act as their blueprints. Over time, genes spontaneously mutate, causing changes in individual organisms. If those changes allow the organism to bear more offspring than others of its species and the mutations happen in genes which are passed on, then more and more organisms will start to bear those genes over time. As many generations pass, the organisms might become entirely different from what they once were.

As an example, consider an animal which obtains a dark coloring as a result of a mutation. If it lives in a dark environment, potential predators will have a harder time spotting it than they have spotting its lighter-colored mates. Over time, there will be more and more dark-colored animals as the light-colored ones get eaten more often. An organism's capability to bear healthy offspring is called its fitness: an organism that has more offspring survive to a reproductive age has a higher fitness, and its genes will spread more. This is what's meant by "survival of the fittest".

The fitness benefit of mutations and the changes they cause is often specific to a certain environment: a thick fur will help an animal survive in a cold climate, but will actually be harmful for animals living in a hot climate. An environment's effect on a population's gene frequencies is called natural selection in analogy to animal breeding: animal breeders select animals with certain traits to have more offspring, and a natural environment selects for traits which are best suited for life in the environment in question.

Even if an organism doesn't reproduce itself, it might help the offspring of its relatives to survive better. Since the offspring of related individuals are likely to bear some of the same genes as the helper, individuals which help closely related individuals to survive are likely to further the spread of their own genes in the population, as well. This is called inclusive fitness, and it has the strongest effect on a population when the cost of helping a relative is small and the benefit to the relative is large.

Natural selection does not always work, however. Even if an organism had genes giving it the best fitness in the population, it might still get killed or fail to reproduce due to plain bad luck. Alternatively, in most sexually reproducing organisms, each parent contributes one half of the offspring's genes. Since the contributed genes are random, genes which are possessed by only one parent will not always get passed on, regardless of their fitness. The effect of chance on gene frequency is called genetic drift, and it has a stronger effect if the size of the population is small or if fewer individuals possess the gene. If a group of thousand individuals all have a particular mutation, they're less likely to all die of bad luck than a group of twenty.

If a population somehow becomes separated into two or more groups, any mutations occurring in one group will not spread in the other. If enough time passes and the environments the groups live in are different enough, they'll eventually become so different that individuals from one group can't reproduce with individuals from the other. This process is called speciation, as it splits a population of same-species organisms into two or more different species.

It is important to remember that evolution works neither to directly benefit individuals nor to benefit the species - it is simply a process by which certain genes spread. It can even harm a species, if the species becomes adapted to too narrow an environment which subsequently disappears.

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.

Source: State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504: Schools; requiring all textbooks to have an evolution disclaimer; codification; effective date; emergency.

1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a ****of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
   • Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
   • Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
   • Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
   • Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
   Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

A draft on endogenous retroviruses courtesy of Junkie_man (cheers for contributing):

A retrovirus is a virus that can transcribe it's own RNA into the a cell of its host as DNA, an example being HIV. Retroviruses become endogenous when they change the DNA of a primordial germ cell, from which gametes (sex cells) are made. This is a rare and random event, but means that any offspring of the infected organism will have that retrovirus in its DNA, and any descendants of that organism will likewise have this viral DNA. This makes the retrovirus an endogenous retrovirus.

This viral DNA is treated as non-essential by the cells of the organism, so will be allowed to mutate relatively rapidly (by evolutionary standards). This means that if two species have similar retroviruses transcribed into their DNA, it would mean that they have a common ancestor. There is no other method discovered as to how this could occur.

Until next August, the easiest way to locate the Evidence for Evolution Archive is on www.worldnegativeone.comCptJSparrow

Cheers cap'n that's a damned nice list of links you have there. The challenge now will be to organize them into one coherent document that is easily accessible for newbies to evolution.

Here's the newer version of CpnJSparrow's list of links taken from http://www.worldnegativeone.com/evolution_archive.htm

I'll just leave it here for easy access later.

Observed instances of speciation.

Neanderthal genome sequencing

Humans and Neanderthals shared Earth

Transitional fossil FAQ

Transitional fossils of hominid skulls

The Origin of Whales

List of transitional fossils

Hundreds of human genes still evolving

Human and ape chromosomes

Ken Miller talks about the evolution of blood clotting

Ken Miller on Whale Evolution

Ken Miller on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Early Man Couldn't "Stomach" Milk

 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Miller-Urey Experiment

The Flagellum Unspun

NASA: Nitrogen, lightning key to early life on Earth

NASA: Scientists Propose New Theory of Early Life on Earth

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Purpose of Appendix Believed Found

Germs Get 'Badder' in Space

Common Ancestor of All Apes Walked Upright

Something Fishy About Human Fingers

Neanderthals Had Language Gene Identical to OursEarly Humans used Makeup, Ate Seafood

Chimps as Irrationally Possessive as Humans

Earth's Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere Older Than Thought

Climate Change Didn't Kill Neanderthals

Early Humans Could Walk, Not Run

'Baby Talk' Universally Understood

Men With 'Caveman' Faces More Attractive to Women

Skull Suggests Two Early Human Species Existed at the Same Time

Intelligent Design on TrialAre Mutations Harmful?

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Missing Link Between Fish and Land Animals

Precambrian Fossils

Permian-Triassic Extinction Event

Oldest Homo Sapiens Found, Experts Say

Neanderthals Not our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests

Cannibalism Normal For Early Humans?

Neanderthals Had Highly Capable Hands, Study Suggests

Did Neanderthals Lack Smarts to Survive?

Java Skull Raises Questions about Human Origins

 First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago

1.8 Million Year-Old Hominid Jaw Found

When Did "Modern Behavior" in Humans Arise?

Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees

Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins

Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Co-Existed

Evolution of the HorseBBC: Evolution of Man

Darwin's Finches Evolving Fast

Velociraptor Had Feathers

Speciation

Understanding Evolution

 Human Evolution - Skeletal Details

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees, and Rhesus Monkeys

Uranium-Lead Dating

First Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Second Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Third Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Fourth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Fifth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Sixth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Seventh Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Eighth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Ninth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Tenth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Eleventh Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Twelfth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Thirteenth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in the Lab

Discovery of UK's Newest Plant Species

Self-Replicating Molecules Reported by MIT

Volcanoes May Have Provided Sparks and Chemistry for First Life

Details of Transition from Fish to Land Animals Revealed

New Fossil Reveals Primates Lingered in Texas

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

domatron23

He did copy it from - http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm you know? They weren't 'his' explanations as such, more Kaj Sotala's. 

Plagiarism it seems . . . . . 

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

Lansdowne5

He did copy it from - http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm you know? They weren't 'his' explanations as such, more Kaj Sotala's. 

Plagiarism it seems . . . . . 

Although in his defence, the speech marks around the title do kind of imply that he is quoting it. Also... I don't see you complaining when your fellow TCWU members plagiarise stuff.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

Lansdowne5

He did copy it from - http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm you know? They weren't 'his' explanations as such, more Kaj Sotala's. 

Plagiarism it seems . . . . . 

I didn't claim to write it myself. I'm often too busy to write entire essays so I will mostlyuse other websites and add my own points and commentary.

A lot of GS creationists use Answers in Genesis as a source and I recently stumbled upon a blogger, named 'AiG busted', who has taken it upon himself to get through the AiG hoaxes and other creationist matters. He is somewhat zealous though but his posts make for interesting reading.

LINK

Here is a list of observed instances of 'evolution in action'. I would like to add that I do not endorse the other content on this site.

LINK

A lot of GS creationists use Answers in Genesis as a source and I recently stumbled upon a blogger, named 'AiG busted', who has taken it upon himself to get through the AiG hoaxes and other creationist matters. He is somewhat zealous though but his posts make for interesting reading.

LINK

felixlynch777

There is also this site with somewhat similar objective.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

felixlynch777

He did copy it from - http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm you know? They weren't 'his' explanations as such, more Kaj Sotala's. 

Plagiarism it seems . . . . . 

I didn't claim to write it myself. I'm often too busy to write entire essays so I will mostlyuse other websites and add my own points and commentary.

Even so, when Domatron congratulated 'you' on writing it, you let him carry on thinking you were the actual author, when you were not. 

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

Lansdowne5

He did copy it from - http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm you know? They weren't 'his' explanations as such, more Kaj Sotala's. 

Plagiarism it seems . . . . . 

I didn't claim to write it myself. I'm often too busy to write entire essays so I will mostlyuse other websites and add my own points and commentary.

Even so, when Domatron congratulated 'you' on writing it, you let him carry on thinking you were the actual author, when you were not. 

I didn't think it was the end of the world so I just let him be.

P.S This whole thing is cluttering the Archive so I will delete the posts once you've read it.

I didn't think it was the end of the world so I just let him be.

P.S This whole thing is cluttering the Archive so I will delete the posts once you've read it.

felixlynch777

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I didn't think it was the end of the world so I just let him be.

P.S This whole thing is cluttering the Archive so I will delete the posts once you've read it.

Funky_Llama

Thanks for pointing that out Funky_Llama.  

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

I didn't think it was the end of the world so I just let him be.

P.S This whole thing is cluttering the Archive so I will delete the posts once you've read it.

Lansdowne5

Thanks for pointing that out Funky_Llama.  

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

felixlynch777

He did copy it from - http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm you know? They weren't 'his' explanations as such, more Kaj Sotala's. 

Plagiarism it seems . . . . . 

I didn't claim to write it myself. I'm often too busy to write entire essays so I will mostlyuse other websites and add my own points and commentary.

Even so, when Domatron congratulated 'you' on writing it, you let him carry on thinking you were the actual author, when you were not. 

I didn't think it was the end of the world so I just let him be.

P.S This whole thing is cluttering the Archive so I will delete the posts once you've read it.

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Awesome Felix thanks very much for that. Your explanations are very clear and very simple, good job.

Keep the content rolling and I'll unify it together sometime during my holidays.

Funky_Llama

He did copy it from - http://www.wisegeek.com/contest/how-does-evolution-work.htm you know? They weren't 'his' explanations as such, more Kaj Sotala's. 

Plagiarism it seems . . . . . 

I didn't claim to write it myself. I'm often too busy to write entire essays so I will mostlyuse other websites and add my own points and commentary.

Even so, when Domatron congratulated 'you' on writing it, you let him carry on thinking you were the actual author, when you were not. 

I didn't think it was the end of the world so I just let him be.

P.S This whole thing is cluttering the Archive so I will delete the posts once you've read it.

Oh the horror!!

Oh the horror!!

felixlynch777

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

Oh the horror!!

Funky_Llama

Dude if you ever watch a horror movie with someone I can bet the person will not be forgetting the experience anytime soon!:lol:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]

Oh the horror!!

7guns

Dude if you ever watch a horror movie with someone I can bet the person will not be forgetting the experience anytime soon!:lol: