Why evolution is true

Taken from "Why evolution is true" by Jerry A. Coyne:

Actually, the nested arrangement of life was recognized long before
Darwin. Starting with the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus in 1635,
biologists began classifying animals and plants, discovering that they
consistently fell into what was called a "natural" classification. Strikingly,
different biologists came up with nearly identical groupings. This means
that these groupings are not subjective artifacts of a human need to
classify, but tell us something real and fundamental about nature. But
nobody knew what that something was until Darwin came along and
showed that the nested arrangement of life is exactly what evolution
predicts. Creatures with recent common ancestors share many traits,
while those whose common ancestors lay in the distant past are more
dissimilar. The "natural" classification is itself strong evidence for
evolution.

This is an excellent read if you trust that evolution is the best available, scientific
explanation for the diversity of life, but find yourself stomped by clever creationist rhetoric.
It deals with everything from paleontology to genetics. Don't let any fool tell you that your
"belief" in evolution is anything like a religious belief. It's simply not.

Originally posted by C Hess
Different biologists came up with nearly identical groupings.

One of our members will seize on the word "nearly."
😛

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
One of our members will seize on the word "nearly."
😛

Nearly as in not different in any for the argument significant way? 😉

Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.

Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.

Each specie ...[text shortened]... ty, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

I’ve discussed fusion events and how they relate to evolution before, and there’s an
interesting difference in context there, too. My prior article was a response to Casey Luskin,
an ignorant creationist who used his misunderstanding of genetics to foolishly assert the
existence of a major problem, and that’s where we have a conflict: ignorance is not a
problem, but stupidly using your ignorance to push invalid ideas is. This question in my
mailbox is also ignorant — the fellow really doesn’t understand the basics of genetics —
but it’s self-recognized ignorance that, in a good way, prompts him to ask a sincere
question.

If you want to dig a little deeper, there are many ways genetic information can be
rearranged on chromosomes, and this has opened the doors to some interesting
evolutionary research. I’ve described how we can map the reshuffling of chunks of genetic
information over time, a process called synteny mapping, which allows us to reconstruct
ancestral chromosomes. A fish might have 42 chromosomes, and we might have 46, but
we can still trace how the ancestral arrangement was scrambled in many different ways to
generate the modern arrangements.

Originally posted by C Hess
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

I’ve discussed fusion events and how they relate to evolution before, and there’s an
interesting difference in context there, too. My prior article was a response to Casey Luskin,
an ignorant creationist who used his misunderstanding of genetics to foolishly assert the ...[text shortened]... arrangement was scrambled in many different ways to
generate the modern arrangements.

Of course, man can do many things by design, if he understands what he is doing. However, evolution does not understand anything and does not do things by design. Unless, in your mind, you have elevated evolution to the status of a god.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of course, man can do many things by design, if he understands what he is doing. However, evolution does not understand anything and does not do things by design. Unless, in your mind, you have elevated evolution to the status of a god.

It's precisely because evolution is a blind process that the clockwork of life is so flawed
and similar across species, from fungi to trees to humans. Clearly, understanding
evolutionary theory in no way requires a belief in a concious process of molding.

Originally posted by C Hess
It's precisely because evolution is a blind process that the clockwork of life is so flawed
and similar across species, from fungi to trees to humans. Clearly, understanding
evolutionary theory in no way requires a belief in a concious process of molding.

Any flaws to the clockwork of life is due to the fact that it is winding down just as indicated by the second law of thermodynamics.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Any flaws to the clockwork of life is due to the fact that it is winding down just as indicated by the second law of thermodynamics.

I've already explained how the second law of thermodynamics don't apply to an open
system like earth. Please don't reuse failed arguments.

Here's another extract from the book that I enjoyed reading in light of recent discussion:

There are hundreds of other examples of evolutionary change in fossils
- both gradual and punctuated - from species as diverse as mollusks,
rodents, and primates. And there are also examples of species that barely
change over time. (Remember that evolutionary theory does not state that
all species must evolve!) But listing these cases wouldn't change my point:
the fossil record gives no evidence for the creationist prediction that all
species appear suddenly and then remain unchanged. Instead, forms of
life appear in the record in evolutionary sequence, and then evolve and
split.

Originally posted by C Hess
I've already explained how the second law of thermodynamics don't apply to an open
system like earth. Please don't reuse failed arguments.

I've already explained how the second law of thermodynamics don't apply to an open
system like earth.

As someone who has personally studied thermodynamics at university level, I can confirm you are absolutely correct.
One reason why the biosphere of the Earth is not a closed system is because it is receiving energy from outside in the form of solar energy from the Sun. Even if you count the sun and Earth together in the same one system, that system still isn't a closed system because most of the solar energy from the Sun misses the Earth and is lost to outside that system. Either energy entering into a system or being lost to the outside of a system means you can have increasing order within that system.

Of course, when I speak of 'order' above, I am talking about thermodynamic order which has little directly to do with anatomical order or any other biological order! Thus EVEN in a thermodynamically isolated system, although physics disallows increasing thermodynamic order, it still allows increasing anatomical order or any other biological order!
Thus, even if, hypothetically, the Earth WAS a closed system, life could still evolve ever greater complexity without contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics although it might be a lot harder for it to do so without energy from outside.

We can expect RJHinds to never learn this and so continue to use his same debunked argument over and over again until he dies -a moron to the bitter end.

Originally posted by humy
Of course, when I speak of 'order' above, I am talking about thermodynamic order which has little directly to do with anatomical order or any other biological order! Thus EVEN in a thermodynamically isolated system, although physics disallows increasing thermodynamic order, it still allows increasing anatomical order or any other biological order!

I would have thought that energy input of some sort would be needed to maintain even
biological complexity. Are you sure about this, or am I not reading you correctly?

Originally posted by humy
We can expect RJHinds to never learn this and so continue to use his same debunked argument over and over again until he dies -a moron to the bitter end.

I fear you're right, but call me the foolish optimist. 😕

Originally posted by humy
...although it might be a lot harder for it to do so without energy from outside.

Right, never mind my question above. 😳

Originally posted by humy

I've already explained how the second law of thermodynamics don't apply to an open
system like earth.

As someone who has personally studied thermodynamics at university level, I can confirm you are absolutely correct.
One reason why the biosphere of the Earth is not a closed system is because it is receiving energy from outside in th ...[text shortened]... to use his same debunked argument over and over again until he dies -a moron to the bitter end.

However, none of this means that things don't wear down and decay on the earth. We see it happening around us all the time.

So the Second Law of Thermodynamics obviously applies to this earth just as much as Newton's Law of Gravity applies to this earth. That is why they are Laws for earth and not theories. We don't need to even consider what might be different in another part of the universe to determine what are laws on earth.