Question for evolutionists here ie touchingcloth, igofan etc

[derrick09]

What are your most convincing, favorite, or top evidences or arguements for macro evolution? In the past I've seen some of you offer some stuff I've never seen before and I'm just curious as to what you all consider to be your most convincing or favorite arguements in favor of macro evolution. Thanks for your responses and comments ahead of time.

[ManOfScience]

One of my favourites is the laryngeal nerve. I don't know whether you've seen this thing, but it links the larynx to the brain. A short journey, then. Except for the fact that it takes a detour around the aorta! There's a picture of it here:

http://geophagus.wordpress.com/2009/07/ ... n-is-true/

The situation is even more extreme in the giraffe: this nerve need only be a few tens of centimetres long, if it took the direct route. In reality, it's about six metres long! This article discusses it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html

If you're not squeamish, this video (watch from about 6:35) is also excellent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ23tDyzyZY

[touchingcloth]

Convincing, favourite and top evidences - great question.

Convincing and top I can't say I have any single answer for as the most convincing line of evidence is that there are multiple different lines of evidence in multiple different fields that are convincing, much more so than any one piece of evidence.

Favourite evidence? Probably those ones that point specifically to the divergence of humans from the ape line. Chromosome 2 is a particularly "satisfying" example as the fusing of it in was something extremely novel that was predicted by the evolutionary model before there was any evidence as to whether or not it was fused.

[derrick09]

Convincing, favourite and top evidences - great question.

Convincing and top I can't say I have any single answer for as the most convincing line of evidence is that there are multiple different lines of evidence in multiple different fields that are convincing, much more so than any one piece of evidence.

If it's ok touchingcloth, could you list or give weblinks to these multiple lines of evidence that you say exists in multiple fields. Thanks for your response and coorperation.

[touchingcloth]

Convincing, favourite and top evidences - great question.

Convincing and top I can't say I have any single answer for as the most convincing line of evidence is that there are multiple different lines of evidence in multiple different fields that are convincing, much more so than any one piece of evidence.

If it's ok touchingcloth, could you list or give weblinks to these multiple lines of evidence that you say exists in multiple fields. Thanks for your response and coorperation.

No problem - the best weblink I could give you for succintness is probably something like TalkOrigins. It collates discussions and articles from the talk.origins usenet group and contains I don't know how many pages. The best aspect of it is that many articles reference and/or link to the relevant articles from the literature so you can persuse the evidence itself.

[ManOfScience]

It just occurred to me, why not bring this even closer to home? We can even see evidence of macroevolution in ourselves. Why, for example, do we have an appendix? Our ancestors (probably) used it for digesting leaves. Homo sapiens has a much reduced need for such a function, and so it has shrunk in size to the point that it can now be considered a vestigial structure.

[ageofknowledge]

Like McCullough's study which showed that individuals low in religiosity are more likely to have a disaffected, apathetic, cynical, and ambitionless personality even among intellectually gifted people. And since atheists are more likely to engage in infidelity which correlates with psychoticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness I can only speculate where atheists think evolution will be taking them.

Since you seem easily amused "science" you should get a kick out of where evolution is taking you.

McCullough, M., J. Tsang, & S. Brion (2003). Personality traits in adolescence as predictors of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 29, 980-91.

[touchingcloth]

@AoK - can I get a "false assertion"?

I couldn't find the bit in the study where "individuals low in religiosity are more likely to have a disaffected, apathetic, cynical, and ambitionless personality" was mentioned...

[ManOfScience]

@AoK - can I get a "false assertion"?

[ageofknowledge]

@AoK - can I get a "false assertion"?

I couldn't find the bit in the study where "individuals low in religiosity are more likely to have a disaffected, apathetic, cynical, and ambitionless personality" was mentioned...

No you cannot get one because I was not quoting directly but paraphrasing. If I had quoted the author there would have been quotation marks obviously. In any event, it was an attempt at levity (that's humor to the lay person).

[touchingcloth]

I was allowing for paraphrasing, and still couldn't find a conclusion like that.

[ageofknowledge]

@AoK - can I get a "false assertion"?

^ The Peanut Gallery.

[touchingcloth]

I had to look at that picture a few times before managing to convince myself that the guy holding the puppet isn't George Bush.

[jlay]

Talk Origins and the Appendix.

Good grief.

[ManOfScience]

Talk Origins and the Appendix. Good grief.

The OP asked for examples, and I gave one. If you'd like to respond to it, please make a point. I'd like to hear it.