Post Your Scientific Proof For Human Evolution

[Thing]

This is not really meant to be an argumentative creationist/evolutionist thread, nor is it about the evolution of Life, plants or animals. Just the facts, the current scientific evidence for Human evolution - if any.

 

[Nickkname]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution#Evidence_for_evolution

 

[rossum]

This is not really meant to be an argumentative creationist/evolutionist thread, nor is it about the evolution of Life, plants or animals. Just the facts, the current scientific evidence for Human evolution - if any.

First, the word “proof” is not really correct. Mathematics has proof, science does not. Science is driven by the evidence so all scientific results are provisional as we cannot know what evidence we will find in future. Better to ask for “evidence” than proof.

Some of the many evidences for human evolution:

1 We fit perfectly into the phylogenetic tree. In 1735 Linnaeus classified Homo sapiens among the primates. We obviously fit the defenitions for Hominidae (apes), primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals and eukaryotes.

2 Evidence from our DNA indicates that we are very closely related to Chimpanzees. We both have identical genes for Cytochrome C, wheras all other animals and plante have a different version. Also the number of differences correlates with the distance we are separated from that organism on the phylogenetic tree.

3 One of our chromosomes is made from two chimpanzee chromosomes joined end-to-end, with the remains of the extra centromere and the two central telomeres that were one at the end of the previously separate chromosomes. See Human Chromosome 2 for more details.

4 Humans are evolving now. We are in the process of evolving resistance to malaria, HIV and also to coping better with the high fat western diet.

5 We have evidence of probable ancestors who started as small-brained upright-walking apes (Australopithecus), then later large-brained upright-walking apes (Homo). We are a large-brained upright-walking ape (Homo sapiens).

6 We share errors on our GULO pseudogene with the other apes. All apes have a mutation early on in the pseudogene which makes a stop codon. This prevents us and the other apes from making our own vitamin C, which is why we need it in our diet.

rossum

 

[PhilVaz]

How about a video? Ken Miller explains the fused chimp-human chromosome (genetics) evidence, and where/when that took place:

Ken Miller on Human Evolution (YouTube video)

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics, TalkOrigins article
Wikipedia’s overview article on the topic

Or whole sites dedicated to the topic, the paleoanthropology (hominids) evidence:

Becoming Human documentary
Fossil Hominids: Evidence for Human Evolution and his response to creationist arguments

Books I’ve checked at my local university library:

Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (2003) VIDEO HERE (13 parts)
Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata (Springer, 2002)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

The evidence is there. As for how to reconcile with Catholic dogma, Cardinal Schonborn’s Chance or Purpose addresses that briefly, Benedict XVI’s In the Beginning… or the 2004 ITC Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God addresses in more depth, also an article Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record borrowed from Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller (evangelical geologist), and Origin of the Human Species by Dennis Bonnette (Catholic philosopher).

Phil P

 

[mapleoak]

It is hard to come up with evidence for evolution as there isn’t any. Lets take a look at some common thoughts:

We fit perfectly into the phylogenetic tree. In 1735 Linnaeus classified Homo sapiens among the primates. We obviously fit the defenitions for Hominidae (apes), primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals and eukaryotes.

Placing humans under a specialized classification system is not evidence of evolution any more than filing my bank statements in with my recipe file is evidence of evolution?

Evidence from our DNA indicates that we are very closely related to Chimpanzees.

God created humans with DNA having properties that are misinterpreted as somehow indicating we are related to chimpanzees.

We both have identical genes for Cytochrome C, wheras all other animals and plante have a different version.

Why would God be limited from creating identical genes for Cytochrome C across different creatures?

Also the number of differences correlates with the distance we are separated from that organism on the phylogenetic tree.

Same as having so many transactions on my bank statement versus how many ingrediants are listed on my recipe.

3 One of our chromosomes is made from two chimpanzee chromosomes joined end-to-end, with the remains of the extra centromere and the two central telomeres that were one at the end of the previously separate chromosomes. See Human Chromosome 2 for more details.

Because God chose to create more than one creature with similar chromosome sequences does not mean evidence of evolution.

4 Humans are evolving now. We are in the process of evolving resistance to malaria, HIV and also to coping better with the high fat western diet.

Developing bacterial and viral resistance is not evolution. Also a high fat diet will not make people evolve into monkeys.

We have evidence of probable ancestors who started as small-brained upright-walking apes (Australopithecus), then later large-brained upright-walking apes (Homo). We are a large-brained upright-walking ape (Homo sapiens).

I know someone else also thinks humans are apes.

We share errors on our GULO pseudogene with the other apes. All apes have a mutation early on in the pseudogene which makes a stop codon. This prevents us and the other apes from making our own vitamin C, which is why we need it in our diet.

Seems interesting that a common mutation would happen over different species if they had evolved.

 

[Thing]

Thanks a lot all.
This might sound stupid to some but I’m trying to look at Human evolution as a stand-alone proposal. Not really so much as it compared to something else, like the evolution of other creatures. If I evolved from a monkey then how am I going to believe that - if I cannot prove that exact fact to myself. Is it something I want to believe even with a lack of proof for the proposal, or can I see the conclusive evidence in front of me.
DNA describes the animal in the same way as a visual image describes an animal, but because things look simillar does not constitute proof of relationship. For all I know a human could have been created like a monkey because its just a good design, especially for a creature who may have been commissioned to conquer the world. Sounds funny but technically it is a valid point.
But theres lots to read in the above posts, post away if you wish.

 

[PhilVaz]

maple << It is hard to come up with evidence for evolution as there isn’t any. Lets take a look at some common thoughts >>

Evidence For Evolution (two parts)

thing << If I evolved from a monkey then how am I going to believe that - if I cannot prove that exact fact to myself. >>

You didn’t evolve from a monkey, but all primates had a common ancestor several million years ago. We are more closely related to the chimps and the "great apes."

Read the links, get the books, buy/rent the DVDs, interview the scientists, visit a library, make an honest effort to exhaustively study the topic.

Phil P

 

[puzzleannie]

I would like to suggest as further guidelines that “evidence for human evolution from another species” is not classed with evidence for genetic adaptation within the human species. For instance adaptation favoring a gene that protects against malaria is NOT evidence for human evolution from a lower species. Poster # 2 is correct in noting that a theory does not have truth, it rests on propositions, which may or may not have been proven, and is supported by a preponderance of evidence, but as long as there is no definitive proof it remains a theory, (evolution, relativity) not a law of nature (gravity, behavior of gases).

also when citing one finding ie. hypothesis related to chimp DNA, it would be only fair to post as well findings of scientists who disagree or claim conflicting evidence.

biological science, unlike mathematics, is not a hierarchy of provable propositions, but rather a systematic collection of data through sophisticated observation and experimentation following accepted rules, and reasoned deductions from that data. Since the data is always changing the deductions change as well. that does not mean the underlying truth of how nature functions changes, it means our understanding changes and grows.

it might be possible for a highly intellegent, educated person who devotes his life to the study of it to know and understand all the work of scientists who have studied evolution, human biology or any other area of science, but it is not required in order to accept or reject the rational possibility that this or that theory is true. nor does my rejection or acceptance affect the underlying truth of a proposition or theory. If it is true, it remains true, whether or not I understand and accept it, and whether or not science has yet to gather sufficient evidence to support it.

 

[rossum]

Placing humans under a specialized classification system is not evidence of evolution any more than filing my bank statements in with my recipe file is evidence of evolution?

Common descent requires that humans fit into the classification system. Creationism does not - God could have made us differently. The requirement is met by the evidence.

God created humans with DNA having properties that are misinterpreted as somehow indicating we are related to chimpanzees.

There are 2 x 10[sup]93[/sup] different ways to make a functioning Cytochrome C (Yockey, 1992). Common descent requires that our Cytochrome C is very similar to our close relatives. Creationism does not require anything - God coul have use any on of the possible Cytochrome Cs or made our metabolism completely different so we did not use Cytochrome C at all. The requirement is met by the evidence.

Why would God be limited from creating identical genes for Cytochrome C across different creatures?

God would not be limited at all, He could easily make organisms with any possible Cytochrome C or none. Evolution is much more restricted. It predicts that related organisms will have related Cytochrome Cs and that the closer the relationship the more similar their Cytochrome Cs are. For instance, starting from humans evolution says that chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys, mice, frogs, fruit flies and sunfowers are progressively further from us and that we should see progressively more differences in their Cytochrome Cs. Have a look at the amino acid sequences for yourself:

Hum:         mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Chp:         mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rhs:         mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiTw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Mus:         mgdvekgkki fVQkcAqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaAgFsyt DanknkgiTw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifAgikkkG eradliaylk katne
Frg:          gdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht cekggkhkvg pnlygligrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg erqdliaylk sacsk
Fly:    mgvp agdvekgkkl fvqrcaqcht veaggkhkvg pnlhgligrk tgqaagfayt dankakgitw nedtlfeyle npkkyipgtk mifaglkkpn ergdliaylk satk
Sun: asfaeap agdpttgaki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknmaviw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk tsta

Hum - human; Chp - chimpanzee; Rhs - rhesus monkey; Mus - mouse; Frg - bullfrog; Fly - fruit fly; Sun - sunflower

There are no differences between human and chimpanzee. There is one difference (indicated with a capital letter) between human and rhesus monkey. There are nine differences (again capitalized) between human and mouse. The others are left as an exercise for the reader.

Evolution makes a prediction, which matches the evidence. Creationism can make no prediction because God could have done whatever He chose.

Because God chose to create more than one creature with similar chromosome sequences does not mean evidence of evolution.

It is certainly evidence. The evidence matches the predictions of evolution. That is science.

Developing bacterial and viral resistance is not evolution. Also a high fat diet will not make people evolve into monkeys.

Evolution is the change in the genomes of a population over time. Human genomes are changing over time, hence the human population is evolving. Speciation will take longer given the long generation times of humans and the high rate of gene flow between populations.

I know someone else also thinks humans are apes.

How many biologists do you know? See Hominidae.

Seems interesting that a common mutation would happen over different species if they had evolved.

Or that mutation just happened once and was inherited by all the descendants of the origial primate who had it. A specific mutation happening once is more likely than exactly the same mutation happening more than once. We can also get a rough estimate of when the mutation happened from the number of non-shared mutations in that pseudogene. It happened long before there were any humans.

rossum

 

[PhilVaz]

puzzle << a theory does not have truth, it rests on propositions, which may or may not have been proven, and is supported by a preponderance of evidence, but as long as there is no definitive proof it remains a theory, (evolution, relativity) not a law of nature (gravity, behavior of gases) >>

Theories are not truth, theories incorporate truths (i.e. data). Theories are not facts, theories explain facts. Theories are not laws, theories are greater than laws, greater than truths, greater than data, greater than facts, since they include and explain all of these. I like my definition of scientific theory better:

…a theory is a model or framework for understanding…an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested…

Theories in science are:

– a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

– a systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

– a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena e.g. a theory of Biological Evolution; also Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ Theory of disease, Theory of Relativity, Electromagnetism, Plate Tectonics, Universal Theory of Gravity, etc.

– a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

Amen.

Why creation or “creationism” is not a scientific theory:

“…‘scientific’ Creationism fails to be a science not because of what it says…about a Divine Creator, but because of what it does not say about the natural world. The theory has no infrastructure, no ways of articulating its vague central idea, so that specific features of living forms can receive detailed explanations.” …“Creation ‘science’ is spurious science. To treat it as science we would have to overlook its intolerable vagueness. We would have to abandon large parts of well-established sciences (physics, chemistry, and geology, as well as evolutionary biology, are all candidates for revision). We would have to trade careful technical procedures for blind guesses, unified theories for motley collections of special techniques. Exceptional cases, whose careful pursuit has so often led to important turnings in the history of science, would be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Nor would there be any gains. There is not a single scientific question to which Creationism provides its own detailed problem solution. In short, Creationism could take a place among the sciences only if the substance and methods of contemporary science were mutilated to make room for a scientifically worthless doctrine.” (Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], pages 126, 164)

Evangelical geologist Keith Miller has similarly written, from a Christian perspective:

“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

Phil P

 

[Monkey1976]

I believe that the issue here is a misunderstanding of how the term “theory” is applied in scientific terms as opposed to its use in casual conversation. When describing a specific mechanism or phenomenon in a scientific manner, a theory is an explanation of that mechanism or phenomenon that has withstood critical scrutiny and makes testable predictions to the point that it is the best possible explanation for that mechanism or phenomenon. The term “law” has largely fallen out of use, as some things that had been considered “laws” have been superseded by later explanations which are still referred to as theories. A prime example of this is Newton’s Law of Gravity. While it works in certain situations, it fails in others. The Theory of Relativity, however, works in almost all situations (the exceptions are extremely small scales and the centers of black holes). It is still referred to as a theory simply because we know it is not a full, complete explanation that works in all instances without fail.

Human evolution, however, is a more complex issue than Newton vs. Einstein. Evolution of species is a proven fact. The details of exactly how it works in terms of selective pressures and molecular biology, or how a specific feature came to be, are still in dispute. What is misunderstood, however, is the nature of the dispute - it’s generally over which particular gene in our makeup might code for that feature. That the feature has evolved from an earlier form is not in dispute.

Edit: badly beaten by rossen and PhilVaz in both time and explanations.

 

[PhilVaz]

monkey << badly beaten by rossen and PhilVaz in both time and explanations >>

Beat ya by only 3 minutes. Of course I don’t have to type anymore on this topic, I just use my Catholic Answers forums “post-bot” to copy/paste large chunks from my already written, well-documented, and spell-checked creation-evolution articles. But the more the merrier. Don’t worry, these threads always last at least 2000 posts, and 50 pages.

Phil P

 

[Thing]

“The Russians landed on Mars 30 years ago.”

Why do I believe that statement? Can I prove it?
Well its physically possible to prove, I just have to go and see the evidence on Mars of a Russian spacecraft landing.
But until I get that particular evidence what reason do I give for believing a statement like that.

A man evolved from an Ape; fine, where is the concrete evidence of that particular evolution point. Why would I elevate an idea to a belief if I am a demanding rational creature?

 

[puzzleannie]

puzzle << a theory does not have truth, it rests on propositions, which may or may not have been proven, and is supported by a preponderance of evidence, but as long as there is no definitive proof it remains a theory, (evolution, relativity) not a law of nature (gravity, behavior of gases) >>

Theories are not truth, theories incorporate truths (i.e. data). Theories are not facts, theories explain facts. Theories are not laws, theories are greater than laws, greater than truths, greater than data, greater than facts, since they include and explain all of these. I like my definition of scientific theory better:

…a theory is a model or framework for understanding…an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested…

Theories in science are:

– a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

– a systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

– a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena e.g. a theory of Biological Evolution; also Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ Theory of disease, Theory of Relativity, Electromagnetism, Plate Tectonics, Universal Theory of Gravity, etc.

– a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

Amen.
P

thank you great explanation for non-scientist

science is not religion and has no authority, ability or mandate to explain truth as revealed by God

religion is not science and explains and passes on revealed Truth about that which is outside the realm of science.

there is no conflict between science and religion, or between faith and reason, unless and until someone working in one realm insists on using the methods of their own realm to explain what is going on in the other realm.

All Truth comes from God, both the Truth he reavealed in Creation, which is observable, through human senses perfected by the tools and methods of science, and that which can be known only by his direct revelation transmitted through the prophets, complete and entire in the person of Jesus Christ, the Word, and protected and handed on by the Church. Therefore no inherent conflict can exist between truth about nature and the natural world, and truth about God and his relationship with mankind.

conflict arises only when we confuse these two realms, confuse our terminology and methodology for observation and discussion.

 

[Orogeny]

“The Russians landed on Mars 30 years ago.”

Why do I believe that statement? Can I prove it?
Well its physically possible to prove, I just have to go and see the evidence on Mars of a Russian spacecraft landing.
But until I get that particular evidence what reason do I give for believing a statement like that.

A man evolved from an Ape; fine, where is the concrete evidence of that particular evolution point. Why would I elevate an idea to a belief if I am a demanding rational creature?

What is it about the evidence already given that you reject? What kind of evidence do you require? If you are a demanding rational creature, can you accept multiple lines of evidence, none of which by themselves are completely convincing but together make an extrememly strong case for human evolution?

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

What is it about the evidence already given that you reject? What kind of evidence do you require? If you are a demanding rational creature, can you accept multiple lines of evidence, none of which by themselves are completely convincing but together make an extrememly strong case for human evolution?

Peace

Tim

Well, you’ve just said it yourself,
I want complete evidence, if you want me to believe a physical thing.
Nearly never won a race. If its true then there is complete evidence somewhere, I hope.

 

[Monkey1976]

Well, you’ve just said it yourself,
I want complete evidence, if you want me to believe a physical thing.
Nearly never won a race. If its true then there is complete evidence somewhere, I hope.

If your standard for belief in a physical thing is “complete” evidence, then you have, by implication, tossed the entire physical universe into the bin.

We have theories that work on large scales (Relativity), and those that work on the very small scales (Quantum Mechanics). These two theories are incompatible with each other. However, in the realms where they do work, they work extremely well. We know that the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, etc exist. We know that atoms exist. Just because we can’t provide a complete mathematical proof that doesn’t fall apart at some point is no reason to assume that these things don’t exist.

We know that evolution of species has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. This is a known fact - there is no single “Theory of Evolution” that one can point to, only different ideas of its mechanism. Just because we can’t map every little detail is no reason to toss out the entire idea.

 

[Thing]

If your standard for belief in a physical thing is “complete” evidence, then you have, by implication, tossed the entire physical universe into the bin.

We have theories that work on large scales (Relativity), and those that work on the very small scales (Quantum Mechanics). These two theories are incompatible with each other. However, in the realms where they do work, they work extremely well. We know that the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, etc exist. We know that atoms exist. Just because we can’t provide a complete mathematical proof that doesn’t fall apart at some point is no reason to assume that these things don’t exist.

We know that evolution of species has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. This is a known fact - there is no single “Theory of Evolution” that one can point to, only different ideas of its mechanism. Just because we can’t map every little detail is no reason to toss out the entire idea.

I know, but its like comparing apples and oranges. Nobody knows what exactly gravity is but where its effects can be felt it can be described.
But, finding evidence for the evolution of an ape into a man is not a problem on such an extreme level. Simply digging out of the ground a complete body of fossil evidence would settle the matter, tracking and tracing the metamorphoses of a population of animals into humans.
You would not believe in gravity if no-one could show you gravity.

I still have to read all the stuff already provided. Maybe I’ll come up with better questions later.

 

[Orogeny]

Simply digging out of the ground a complete body of fossil evidence would settle the matter, tracking and tracing the metamorphoses of a population of animals into humans.

How “complete” do you need? Do we need a fossil for every ancestral species that ever lived or would an obvious line with gaps suffice?

Peace

Tim

 

[Thing]

I am thinking of something like the earliest hominid (if thats the right word) fossil and the intermediaries between it and its closest ‘obviously animal’ ancestor.
I am going to assume that humans evolved from one population of apes in one area of some country. So it may be that all the evidence you’d ever need to find would be very local, find the earliest hominid and theres a good chance of tracking down its animal ancestors.
Is that too simplistic.