Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good introductory textbook that will explain many of your questions about the validity of the theory of evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and should provide a basis for further exploring any other questions you have.
Christie Forest Resources and Conservation University of Florida --- Johannes J L Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "I do not think evolution is supremely important > because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is > my specialty because I think it is supremely > important." - /George Gaylord Simpson/ > > JJ Le Roux > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences > University of Hawai'i at Manoa > Hawai'i > tel (808) 956 0781 > fax (808) 956 3894 > > http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am > Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > The answer is much simpler. The Theory of > Evolution explains those > > data.No other theory does. Someone wants to > propose another theory > > to explain > > those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are > closed the "theories" > > thatare nothing more than criticisms of other > theories. > > > > Rob Hamilton > > > > "So easy it seemed once found, which yet > > unfound most would have thought impossible" > > > > John Milton > > ________________________________________ > > > > Robert G. Hamilton > > Department of Biological Sciences > > Mississippi College > > P.O. Box 4045 > > 200 South Capitol Street > > Clinton, MS 39058 > > Phone: (601) 925-3872 > > FAX (601) 925-3978 > > > > >>> Russell Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 8/27/2007 8:09 AM >>> > > Carissa: > > you've got quite a collection of concerns about > evolution here, and > > you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all > and teach you a > > basic > > course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one > already, then it > > would > > be possible to start this discussion at some point > later than where it > > was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced > issues now. that's > > right, almost every one of your concerns here was > familiar to Darwin > > and > > he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, > he didn't ask about > > molecular evolution, but replace the molecular > terms in your email > > with > > parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 > years ago. ID > > arguments are so old hat by now that they're > pretty boring. sorry if > > that's offensive, I don't mean to be. > > > > except maybe the origin of life question, which is > quite separate from > > evolution--evolution being change over > generations, evolution doesn't > > specifically address origin of life. that's a > different issue that's > > often conflated with evolution. > > > > you asked why the scientific community is so > convinced of > > evolution? > > I'd say three main reasons. > > > > 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, > behavioral, > > molecular, > > and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any > basic text book in > > evolution and you'll see what I mean. > > > > 2. it has another characteristic that scientists > like: using the > > theory > > of evolution, we can and do generate testable > hypotheses, and by > > testing > > them, we practice science. in fact, many > thousands of tests of > > evolution have been performed, and evolution is > holding up quite well. > > > > 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory > of "how the > > biological > > world got to be this way" has evidence supporting > it and generates > > testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes > up with an > > alternative, you can replace the theory of > evolution with your own > > ideas > > when you produce substantial amounts of data and > successfully use it > > to > > generate and test meaningful hypotheses. > > > > especially given your background and institutional > placement, its > > surprising that you haven't made better use of the > tremendous > > resources > > at your disposal to educate yourself on the > evidence for evolution, > > and > > at least bring your education up to current > issues. I'll bet the > > people > > in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, > and if not, you are > > surrounded by resources that can answer your > question: "why is the > > scientific community so convinced of evolution?" > > > > RBurke > > > > >>> Carissa Shipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/26/07 > 10:08 PM >>> > > I am a biology student at Temple University and I > have > > conducted an NSF funded systematics project for > the order > > Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural > History. My > > question is why is the scientific community so > convinced of > > evolution? There are very few publications > concerning > > evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. > Most > > scientists are baffled at how such molecular > systems such > > as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step > manner. > > It looks to me like many of the molecular inter > workings all > > needed to be there simultaneously for the end > product to > > function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just > as > > baffling. How could that have happened in a step > by step > > fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist > has the > > answer. So if you can not explain how the most > nitty gritty > > machines of life "molecules" learned to function > in the > > intricate ways that they do why are you so certain > that > > everything evolved? Science is looking at the > details. All > > science textbooks I have read have relayed very > little > > evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They > just say > > it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has > published very > > few papers concerning molecular evolution it > should perish. > > Systematics addresses genetic similarities between > species, > > but it does not address exactly how those genetic > > differences and similarities came to be. There > maybe fossils > > and genes, but you need more than this. I am not > convinced > > of evolution, but still choose to educate myself > in what it > > teaches and believes. How do scientists explain > how even the > > slightest mutation in the human genome is highly > detrimental > > most of the time? If even the slightest change > occurs in our > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
