Online Reference: FAQs and tutorials on the Theory of Evolution

[Parsimony]

Mind if I add a few more resources?

Endogenous Retroviruses:

*Three Layers of Endogenous Retroviral Evidence for the Evolutionary Model
*Responding to the "Evolution News & Views" articles addressing my essay on the ERV evidence for common ancestry
*Demystified...Human endogenous retroviruses

New Genes and their Functions:

*Three-dimensional Structure of Nylon Hydrolase and Mechanism of Nylon-6 Hydrolysis
*Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.
*Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12.

Vestigial Traits and Genes:

*Pseudogenization of the tooth gene enamelysin (MMP20) in the common ancestor of extant baleen whales

Retroviruses which are both Exogenous and Endogenous:
*Wikipedia - Koala retrovirus
*Koala retroviruses: characterization and impact on the life of koalas
*Wikipedia - Murine leukemia virus
*Wikipedia - Mouse mammary tumor virus

 

[LuisDantas]

*** Mod Post: thread split according to stance. The anti-evolution posts are now on this other sticky thread ***

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-reference-selected-sites-denying-theory.html

 

[LuisDantas]

Posts are no longer editable after a few days. Would you like to have the new links merged with the previous post? You may ask for such things in the Site Feedback area in the future, by the way.

 

[Ouroboros]

Spark of Life: Metabolism Appears in Lab without Cells:

link

This is a very interesting report. I hope it holds up to peer-review and it wasn't a false positive.

Basically, accidentally they found that "matter" started a metabolic process in a medium (like a petri dish, full of nutrition for life but not containing any biological life). And then it was repeated.

If it holds up, this is likely one of the first steps in abiogenesis. (besides the other experiments showing how cell walls, amino-acid, multicellular cells, and nucleotides can form spontaneously and exists in space).

 

[Harpalycus]

Essentially a law is a description of the way that things behave. The Law of gravity does not explain why stones fall to earth. As far as it is concerned the motive force could be fairies. It describes that the stone falls towards the centre of the earth with an acceleration dependent upon the mass of the stone, the mass of the earth and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their two centres of gravity..
A theory is some idea of how things work, usually accommodating different phenomena under the same general principle. If it remains contentious it is a hypothesis. If it becomes generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, fits the facts more closely than any other hypothesis and generates predictions that can be validated then it becomes a theory.

 

[ChristineM]

I always find berkeley's evolution 101 to be pretty good
Welcome to Evolution 101!

A few more resources
Understanding Evolution

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Very likely some of these are duplicates. But since 2005, I've been arguing evolution with doubters, and I built a list of the links I liked best, and put it in a permanent clip:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense -- Scientific American

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution -- Berkeley U

8 Scientific Discoveries That Prove Evolution is Real

Human Evolution Evidence - Smithsonian

HOW DID MULTICELLULAR LIFE EVOLVE? - Astrobiology Magazine

Evolution -- PBS

101 Reasons Why Evolution is True

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds - National Geographic

 

[Skwim]

"In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.


"In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though. In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.

Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to the University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University."
source​

 

[Audie]

This entire section of the forum is for debating the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact that can not be refuted or potentially refuted, then it would be called a law. In science we have hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypthosis is we think this is what is happening, but we aren't sure. A theory is we think this is what is happening and we're pretty confident this is correct. A law is we know this is true.

The process of evolution is established scientific fact, the theory of evolution still has missing pieces of evidence.

I dont believe you have any kind of science degree.

 

[shunyadragon]

This entire section of the forum is for debating the theory of evolution.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact that can not be refuted or potentially refuted, then it would be called a law. In science we have hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypthosis is we think this is what is happening, but we aren't sure. A theory is we think this is what is happening and we're pretty confident this is correct. A law is we know this is true.

The process of evolution is established scientific fact, the theory of evolution still has missing pieces of evidence.

This is an unfortunate view the sciences of evolution and what rare theories, hypotheses and what may be considered as facts. Nothing above reflects the sciences of evolution. There is too much intentional ignorance of science in the above to address it all, but there appears to more a religious agenda involved and NOT a sincere consideration of the sciencesof evolution.

First, it is an unfortunate misuse of terminology to describe evolution anecdotally as a fact. because of the overwhelming objective evidence supporting evolution.

Second, it is best to describe evolution as the sciences of evolution, andnotone theory. In reality there are many predictable theories and hypotheses involved in the history of the sciences of evolution.

Facts are best described as the specific objective evidence that supports all the sciences. The sciences of evolution is interwoven in all the sciences, of biology, geology, genetics, paleontology, organic chemistry and physics,

 

[LuisDantas]

First, it is an unfortunate misuse of terminology to describe evolution anecdotally as a fact. because of the overwhelming objective evidence supporting evolution.

Really?

I would say instead that it is pointing out an unfortunate lack of epistemological seriousness in casual discourse.

Our communities go out of their ways in order to lend prestige to straws of belief and waste obscene amounts of attention and emotional energy in order to protect them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks Luis,

Hopefully when we get new theists coming in, putting forward their misconceptions, a link to this thread can be posted and the new theist can become educated and there will be a decrease in general ridicule.

-Q

And hopefully I'll win the lottery.

 

[Secret Chief]

And hopefully I'll win the lottery.

And I've already cleared a space in the garage for a Ferrari.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And I've already cleared a space in the garage for a Ferrari.

There is no science suggesting that your Fiat will evolve into a Ferrari.

 

[Secret Chief]

There is no science suggesting that your Fiat will evolve into a Ferrari.

Excuse me, I've long since upgraded from Fiats. I'm now the proud owner of a Skoda (which strangely has mould growing in the door and boot crevises).

 

[ChristineM]

And I've already cleared a space in the garage for a Ferrari.

Or how about a Lamborghini?

Spoiler: Lamborghini

 

[Secret Chief]

Or how about a Lamborghini?

Spoiler: Lamborghini

View attachment 91063

Hmmmm that looks like something @Revoltingest would salivate over.

 

[ChristineM]

Hmmmm that looks like something @Revoltingest would salivate over.

Not a lambo but a Massey Ferguson was what i learned to drive on.

And @Revoltingest has salivated over it ;-)

 

[Secret Chief]

Not a lambo but a Massey Ferguson was what i learned to drive on.

And @Revoltingest has salivated over it ;-)

He is a deere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not a lambo but a Massey Ferguson was what i learned to drive on.

Farmall F12 like this one for me.
(Albeit un-restored)