Ah, ok. Well, to start with, that isn't what I usually mean when I say Evolution. That's why I gave you the definition I use. It can be tricky when multiple people use a word and don't have a common definition.
As for your question here, it's a good one. I also don't have all the answers. There is some direct evidence, some things you bring out via inductive reasoning. To start with, we have the definition of evolution as descent with modification in a system of natural selection. As I mentioned, all parts of this have been independently observed in a laboratory. We've observed and induced speciation, for instance, and watched adaptation in species ranging from bacteria to round worms to fruit flies. So we know that the fundamental elements of evolutionary adaptation are found in all known modern life and that the processes are largely the same. If this mechanism is common to all species, then it seems reasonable to believe that it is what is responsible for simple organisms becoming complex organisms. Then there is the cool feature of evolution where useful things tend to get reused. If some sort of adaptation works well, it is strongly selected for. If it tends to work well in a variety of environments, it will be strongly selected for in a number of places and you'll see it's spread through the gene pool and if it continues to be useful, you'll see it kept around in species as new species arise. Take, for instance, a set of genes called the HOX cluster. The HOX genes determine bilateral symmetry, basically head-tail orientation, and the formation of major limb-like and segment-like structures. That's kind of a basic thing that all animals have and, lo and behold, HOX genes are incredibly similar across all animal phyla, from sea urchins to humans. Which is more likely, that the same genetic sequences independently evolved in all major animal phyla or that they developed in some of the earliest animals and then were preserved during later speciation and the development of the plethora of phyla that we know today? There is lots more, of course, because it is a big field. I'm happy to go down into any specifics you might want to know (though I do not necessarily know the answer) but I have to go help a friend dig a ditch right now. Cheers, Judah On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:28 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > That there is proof that I am the product, however long and by what ever > means, of a single cell organism that eventually walked on land to become a > primate and eventually me. > > I am no biologist, molecular or otherwise. > On Jan 4, 2014 1:23 AM, "Judah McAuley" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Where is the faith? What are you believing without evidence? > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:18 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have to side with Sam here. > > > > > > There is an element of faith based on sources here. > > > > > > A faith to which I personally ascribe, but a faith none the less. > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:369143 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
