Aren't atheist weird?

Here is some evidence for evolution:

Evidence from paleontology

An insect trapped in amber.When organisms die, they often decompose rapidly or are consumed by scavengers, leaving no permanent evidences of their existence. However, occasionally, some organisms are preserved. The remains or traces of organisms from a past geologic age embedded in rocks by natural processes are called fossils. They are extremely important for understanding the evolutionary history of life on Earth, as they provide direct evidence of evolution and detailed information on the ancestry of organisms. Paleontology is the study of past life based on fossil records and their relations to different geologic time periods.

For fossilization to take place, the traces and remains of organisms must be quickly buried so that weathering and decomposition do not occur. Skeletal structures or other hard parts of the organisms are the most commonly occurring form of fossilized remains (Paul, 1998), (Behrensmeyer, 1980) and (Martin, 1999). There are also some trace "fossils" showing moulds, cast or imprints of some previous organisms.

As an animal dies, the organic materials gradually decay, such that the bones become porous. If the animal is subsequently buried in mud, mineral salts will infiltrate into the bones and gradually fill up the pores. The bones will harden into stones and be preserved as fossils. This process is known as petrification. If dead animals are covered by wind-blown sand, and if the sand is subsequently turned into mud by heavy rain or floods, the same process of mineral infiltration may occur. Apart from petrification, the dead bodies of organisms may be well preserved in ice, in hardened resin of coniferous trees (amber), in tar, or in anaerobic, acidic peat. Fossilization can sometimes be a trace, an impression of a form. Examples include leaves and footprints, the fossils of which are made in layers that then harden.

Fossil records

Main article: Fossil record

Fossil trilobite. Trilobites were hard-shelled arthropods, related to living horseshoe crabs and spiders, that first appeared in significant numbers around 540 mya, dying out 250 mya.It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.

A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil records. Fossil evidence supports the theory that organisms tend to progressively increase in complexity. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.

In the past, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.

Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times at which species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species which adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection.

According to fossil records, some modern species of plants and animals are found to be almost identical to the species that lived in ancient geological ages. They are existing species of ancient lineages that have remained morphologically (and probably also physiologically) somewhat unchanged for a very long time. Consequently, they are called "living fossils" by laypeople. Examples of "living fossils" include the tuatara, the nautilus, the horseshoe crab, the coelacanth, the ginkgo, the Wollemi pine, and the metasequoia.

Extent of the Fossil Record

Despite the relative rarity of suitable conditions for fossilization, approximately 250,000 fossil species are known[4]. The number of individual fossils this represents varies greatly from species to species, but many millions of fossils have been recovered: for instance, more than three million fossils from the last Ice Age have been recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles[5]. Many more fossils are still in the ground, in various geological formations known to contain a high fossil density, allowing estimates of the total fossil content of the formation to be made. An example of this occurs in South Africa's Beaufort Formation (part of the Karoo Supergroup, which covers most of South Africa), which is rich in vertebrate fossils, including therapsids (reptile/mammal transitional forms)[6]. It has been estimated[7] that this formation contains 800 billion vertebrate fossils.

Evolution of the horse

Further information: Evolution of the horse

Evolution of the horse showing reconstruction of the fossil species obtained from successive rock strata. The foot diagrams are all front views of the left forefoot. The third metacarpal is shaded throughout. The teeth are shown in longitudinal section.Due to an almost-complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present, the horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny).

This evolutionary sequence starts with a small animal called the Hyracotherium which lived in North America about 54 million years ago, then spread across to Europe and Asia. Fossil remains of Hyracotherium show it to have differed from the modern horse in three important respects: it was a small animal (the size of a fox), lightly built and adapted for running; the limbs were short and slender, and the feet elongated so that the digits were almost vertical, with four digits in the forelimbs and three digits in the hindlimbs; and the incisors were small, the molars having low crowns with rounded cusps covered in enamel.

The probable course of development of horses from Hyracotheium to Equus (the modern horse) involved at least 12 genera and several hundred species. The major trends seen in the development of the horse to changing environmental conditions may be summarized as follows:

Increase in size (from 0.4 m to 1.5 m);

Lengthening of limbs and feet;

Reduction of lateral digits;

Increase in length and thickness of the third digit;

Increase in width of incisors;

Replacement of premolars by molars; and

Increases in tooth length, crown height of molars.

Fossilized plants found in different strata show that the marshy, wooded country in which Hyracotherium lived became gradually drier. Survival now depended on the head being in an elevated position for gaining a good view of the surrounding countryside, and on a high turn of speed for escape from predators, hence the increase in size and the replacement of the splayed-out foot by the hoofed foot. The drier, harder ground would make the original splayed-out foot unnecessary for support. The changes in the teeth can be explained by assuming that the diet changed from soft vegetation to grass. A dominant genus from each geological period has been selected to show the progressive development of the horse. However, it is important to note that there is no evidence that the forms illustrated are direct descendants of each other, even though they are related.

Limitations

The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. Furthermore, there are also much larger gaps between major evolutionary lineages. These gaps are often referred to as "missing links".

There is a gap of about 100 million years between the early Cambrian period and the later Ordovician period. The early Cambrian period was the period from which numerous fossils of sponges, cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), echinoderms (e.g., eocrinoids), molluscs (e.g., snails) and arthropods (e.g., trilobites) are found. In the later Ordovician period, the first animal that really possessed the typical features of vertebrates, the Australian fish, Arandaspis appeared. Thus few, if any, fossils of an intermediate type between invertebrates and vertebrates have been found, although likely candidates include the Burgess Shale animal, Pikaia gracilens, and its Maotianshan Shales relatives, Myllokunmingia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella lanceolata, and Haikouichthys.

Some of the reasons for the incompleteness of fossil records are:

In general, the probability that an organism becomes fossilized after death is very low;

Some species or groups are less likely to become fossils because they are soft-bodied;

Some species or groups are less likely to become fossils because they live (and die) in conditions that are not favourable for fossilization to occur in;

Many fossils have been destroyed through erosion and tectonic movements;

Some fossil remains are complete, but most are fragmentary;

Some evolutionary change occurs in populations at the limits of a species' ecological range, and as these populations are likely to be small, the probability of fossilization is lower (see punctuated equilibrium);

Similarly, when environmental conditions change, the population of a species is likely to be greatly reduced, such that any evolutionary change induced by these new conditions is less likely to be fossilized;

Most fossils convey information about external form, but little about how the organism functioned;

Using present-day biodiversity as a guide, this suggests that the fossils unearthed represent only a small fraction of the large number of species of organisms that lived in the past.

Evidence from comparative anatomy

Comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals or plants reveals that certain structural features are basically similar. For example, the basic structure of all flowers consists of sepals, petals, stigma, style and ovary; yet the size, colour, number of parts and specific structure are different for each individual species.

Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution

If widely separated groups of organisms are originated from a common ancestry, they are expected to have certain basic features in common. The degree of resemblance between two organisms should indicate how closely related they are in evolution:

Groups with little in common are assumed to have diverged from a common ancestor much earlier in geological history than groups which have a lot in common;

In deciding how closely related two animals are, a comparative anatomist looks for structures that are fundamentally similar, even though they may serve different functions in the adult. Such structures are described as homologous and suggest a common origin.

In cases where the similar structures serve different functions in adults, it may be necessary to trace their origin and embryonic development. A similar developmental origin suggests they are the same structure, and thus likely to be derived from a common ancestor.

When a group of organisms share a homologous structure which is specialized to perform a variety of functions in order to adapt different environmental conditions and modes of life are called adaptive radiation. The gradual spreading of organisms with adaptive radiation is known as divergent evolution.

Pentadactyl limb

Figure 5a: The principle of homology illustrated by the adaptive radiation of the forelimb of mammals. All conform to the basic pentadactyl pattern but are modified for different usages. The third metacarpal is shaded throughout; the shoulder is crossed-hatched.The pattern of limb bones called pentadactyl limb is an example of homologous structures (Fig. 5a). It is found in all classes of tetrapods (i.e. from amphibians to mammals). It can even be traced back to the fins of certain fossil fishes from which the first amphibians are thought to have evolved. The limb has a single proximal bone (humerus), two distal bones (radius and ulna), a series of carpals (wrist bones), followed by five series of metacarpals (palm bones) and phalanges (digits). Throughout the tetrapods, the fundamental structures of pentadactyl limbs are the same, indicating that they originated from a common ancestor. But in the course of evolution, these fundamental structures have been modified. They have become superficially different and unrelated structures to serve different functions in adaptation to different environments and modes of life. This phenomenon is clearly shown in the forelimbs of mammals. For example:

In the monkey, the forelimbs are much elongated to form a grasping hand for climbing and swinging among trees.

In the pig, the first digit is lost, and the second and fifth digits are reduced. The remaining two digits are longer and stouter than the rest and bear a hoof for supporting the body.

In the horse, the forelimbs are adapted for support and running by great elongation of the third digit bearing a hoof.

The mole has a pair of short, spade-like forelimbs for burrowing.

The anteater uses its enlarged third digit for tearing down ant hills and termite nests.

In the whale, the forelimbs become flippers for steering and maintaining equilibrium during swimming.

In the bat, the forelimbs have turned into wings for flying by great elongation of four digits, and the hook-like first digit remains free for hanging from trees.

[edit] Insect mouthparts

Figure 5b: Adaptive radiation of insect mouthparts: a, antennae; c, compound eye; lb, labrium; lr, labrum; md, mandibles; mx, maxillae.The basic structures are the same which include a labrum (upper lip), a pair of mandibles, a hypopharynx (floor of mouth), a pair of maxillae and a labium. These structures are enlarged and modified; others are reduced and lost. The modifications enable the insects to exploit a variety of food materials (Fig. 5b):

(A) Primitive state — biting and chewing: e.g. grasshopper. Strong mandibles and maxillae for manipulating food.

(B) Ticking and biting: e.g. honey bee. Labium long to lap up nectar; mandibles chew pollen and mould wax.

(C) Sucking: e.g. butterfly. Labrum reduced; mandibles lost; maxillae long forming sucking tube.

(D) Piercing and sucking, e.g. female mosquito. Labrum and maxillae form tube; mandibles form piercing stylets; labrum grooved to hold other parts.

[edit] Other Arthropod Appendages

Insect mouthparts and antennae are considered homologues of insect legs. Parallel developments are seen in some arachnids: The anterior pair of legs may be modified as analogues of antennae, particularly in whip scorpians, which walk on six legs. These developments provide support for the theory that complex modifications often arise by duplication of components, with the duplicates modified in different directions.

Analogous structures and convergent evolution

Figure 6: Inverted retina of vertebrate (left) and non-inverted retina of octopus (right)Under similar environmental conditions, fundamentally different structures in different groups of organisms may undergo modifications to serve similar functions. This phenomenon is called convergent evolution. Similar structures, physiological processes or mode of life in organisms apparently bearing no close phylogenetic links but showing adaptations to perform the same functions are described as analogous, for example:

Wings of bats, birds and insects;

the jointed legs of insects and vertebrates;

tail fin of fish, whale and lobster;

eyes of the vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs (squid and octopus). Fig. 6 illustrates difference between an inverted and non-inverted retina, the sensory cells lying beneath the nerve fibres. This results in the sensory cells being absent where the optic nerve is attached to the eye, thus creating a blind spot. The octopus eye has a non-inverted retina in which the sensory cells lie above the nerve fibres. There is therefore no blind spot in this kind of eye. Apart from this difference the two eyes are remarkably similar, an example of convergent evolution.

See also: Evolution of the eye

Vestigial organs

Main article: Vestigial structure

A further aspect of comparative anatomy is the presence of vestigial organs. Organs that are smaller and simpler in structure than corresponding parts in the ancestral species are called vestigial organs. They are usually degenerated or underdeveloped. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. Those organs are thought to be functional in the ancestral species but have now become unnecessary and non-functional. Examples are the vestigial hind limbs of whales, the haltere (vestigial hind wings) of flies and mosquitos, vestigial wings of flightless birds such as ostriches, and the vestigial leaves of some xerophytes (e.g. cactus) and parasitic plants (e.g. dodder). It must be noted however, that vestigial structures have lost the original function but may have another one. For example the halteres in dipterists help balance the insect while in flight and the wings of ostriches are used in mating rituals.

[edit] Evidence from geographical distribution

Biologists have discovered many puzzling facts about the presence of certain species on various continents and islands (biogeography).

[edit] Continental distribution

All organisms are adapted to their environment to a greater or lesser extent. If the abiotic and biotic factors within a habitat are capable of supporting a particular species in one geographic area, then one might assume that the same species would be found in a similar habitat in a similar geographic area, e.g. in Africa and South America. This is not the case. Plant and animal species are discontinuously distributed throughout the world:

Africa has short-tailed (Old World) monkeys, elephants, lions and giraffes.

South America has long-tailed monkeys, cougars, jaguars and llamas.

Even greater differences can be found if Australia is taken into consideration though it occupies the same latitude as South America and Africa. Marsupials like the kangaroo can be found in Australia, but are totally absent from Africa and are only represented by the opossum in South America and the Virginia Opossum in North America:

The echidna and platypus, the only living representatives of primitive egg-laying mammals (monotremes), can be found only in Australia and are totally absent in the rest of the world.

On the other hand, Australia has very few placental mammals except those that have been introduced by human beings.

Explanation

Figure 7: Diagrams to the land bridge between continents in past geological time (A) and the barriers formed (B) due to the submergence of land bridges.The main groups of modern mammal arose in Northern Hemisphere and subsequently migrated to three major directions:

to South America via the land bridge in the Bering Strait and Isthmus of Panama; A large number of families of South American marsupials became extinct as a result of competition with these North American counterparts.

to Africa via the Strait of Gibraltar; and

to Australia via South East Asia to which it was at one time connected by land

The shallowness of the Bering Strait would have made the passage of animals between two northern continents a relatively easy matter, and it explains the present-day similarity of the two faunas. But once they had got down into the southern continents, they presumably became isolated from each other by various types of barriers.

The submerging of the Isthmus of Panama: isolates the South American fauna

the Mediterranean Sea and the North African desert: partially isolate the African fauna; and

the submerging of the original connection between Australia and South East Asia: isolates the Australian fauna

Once isolated, the animals in each continent have shown adaptive radiation (Fig. 7) to evolve along their own lines.

Evidence for migration and isolation

Map of the world showing distribution of present members of camel. Solid black lines indicate possible migration routes.The fossil record for the camel indicated that evolution of camels started in North America, from which they migrated across the Bering Strait into Asia and hence to Africa, and through the Isthmus of Panama into South America. Once isolated, they evolved along their own lines, giving the modern camel in Asia and Africa and llama in South America.

Continental drift

The same kinds of fossils are found from areas known to be adjacent to one another in the past but which, through the process of continental drift, are now in widely divergent geographic locations. For example, fossils of the same types of ancient amphibians, arthropods and ferns are found in South America, Africa, India, Australia and Antarctica, which can be dated to the Paleozoic Era, at which time these regions were united as a single landmass called Gondwana. [8] Sometimes the descendants of these organisms can be identified and show unmistakable similarity to each other, even though they now inhabit very different regions and climates.

Oceanic island distribution

Most small isolated islands only have native species that could have arrived by air or water; like birds, insects and turtles. The few large mammals present today were brought by human settlers in boats. Plant life on remote and recent volcanic islands like Hawaii could have arrived as airborne spores or as seeds in the droppings of birds. After the explosion of Krakatoa a century ago and the emergence of a steaming, lifeless remnant island called Anak Krakatoa (child of Krakatoa), plants arrived within months and within a year there were moths and spiders that had arrived by air. The island is now ecologially hard to distinguish from those around it that have been there for millions of years.

Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry

See also: Archaeogenetics, Common descent, Last universal ancestor, Most recent common ancestor, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Speciation, Timeline of evolution, Timeline of human evolution, Universal Code (Biology)

Evolution of widely distributed proteins and molecules

All known extant organisms make use of DNA and/or RNA. ATP is used as metabolic currency by all extant life. The Genetic code is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of RNA in a bacterium codes for the same protein as in a human cell.

A classic example of biochemical evidence for evolution is the variance of the protein Cytochrome c in living cells. The variance of cytochrome c of different organisms is measured in the number of differing amino acids, each differing amino acid being a result of a base pair substitution, a mutation. If each differing amino acid is assumed to be the result of one base pair substitution, it can be calculated how long ago the two species diverged by multiplying the number of base pair substitutions by the estimated time it takes for a substituted base pair of the cytochrome c gene to be successfully passed on. For example, if the average time it takes for a base pair of the cytochrome c gene to mutate is N years, the number of amino acids making up the cytochrome c protein in monkeys differ by one from that of humans, this leads to the conclusion that the two species diverged N years ago.

Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[1] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.[2][3] The sequence of the 16S rRNA gene, a vital gene encoding a part of the ribosome, was used to find the broad phylogenetic relationships between all extant life. The analysis, originally done by Carl Woese, resulted in the three-domain system, arguing for two major splits in the early evolution of life. The first split led to modern Bacteria and the subsequent split led to modern Archaea and Eukaryote.

The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase, are found in everything from the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent. The chirality of DNA, RNA, and amino acids is conserved across all known life. As there is no functional advantage to right- or left-handed molecular chirality, the simplest hypothesis is that the choice was made randomly by early organisms and passed on to all extant life through common descent. Further evidence for reconstructing ancestral lineages comes from junk DNA such as pseudogenes, "dead" genes which steadily accumulate mutations.[4]

There is also a large body of molecular evidence for a number of different mechanisms for large evolutionary changes, among them: genome and gene duplication, which facilitates rapid evolution by providing substantial quantities of genetic material under weak or no selective constraints; horizontal gene transfer, the process of transferring genetic material to another cell that is not an organism's offspring, allowing for species to acquire beneficial genes from each other; and recombination, capable of reassorting large numbers of different alleles and of establishing reproductive isolation. The Endosymbiotic theory explains the origin of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells, as the incorporation of an ancient prokaryotic cell into ancient eukaryotic cell. Rather than evolving eukaryotic organelles slowly, this theory offers a mechanism for a sudden evolutionary leap by incorporating the genetic material and biochemical composition of a separate species. Evidence supporting this mechanism has recently been found in the protist Hatena: as a predator it engufes a green algae cell, which subsequently behaves as an endosymbiont, nourishing Hatena, which in turn loses it's feeding apparatus and behaves as an autotroph.[5][6]

Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged when new metabolic processes appeared, and it is theoretically possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor or by detecting their physical manifestations. As an example, the appearance of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is linked to the evolution of photosynthesis.

Out of Africa hypothesis of human evolution

Mathematical models of evolution, pioneered by the likes of Sewall Wright, Ronald Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane and extended via diffusion theory by Motoo Kimura, allow predictions about the genetic structure of evolving populations. Direct examination of the genetic structure of modern populations via DNA sequencing has recently allowed verification of many of these predictions. For example, the Out of Africa theory of human origins, which states that modern humans developed in Africa and a small sub-population migrated out (undergoing a population bottleneck), implies that modern populations should show the signatures of this migration pattern. Specifically, post-bottleneck populations (Europeans and Asians) should show lower overall genetic diversity and a more uniform distribution of allele frequencies compared to the African population. Both of these predictions are borne out by actual data from a number of studies.[citation needed]

Evidences for Macroevolution, Part 4: The Molecular Sequence Evidence

Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance

The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species. Thus the appearance of vancomycin resistant Staphlococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients is a direct result of evolution through natural selection. Similarly the appearance of DDT resistance in various forms of Anopheles mosqitoes, and the appearance of myxomatosis resistance in breeding rabbit populations in Australia, are all evidence of the existence of evolution in situations of evolutionary selection pressure in species in which generations occur rapidly.

Evidence from studies of complex iteration

"It has taken more than five decades, but the electronic computer is now powerful enough to simulate evolution" [9] assisting bioinformatics in its attempt to solve biological problems.

Computer science allows the iteration of self changing complex systems to be studied, allowing a mathematically exact understanding of the nature of the processes behind evolution; providing evidence for the hidden causes of known evolutionary events. The evolution of specific cellular mechanisms like spliceosomes that can turn the cell's genome into a vast workshop of billions of interchangeable parts that can create tools that create tools that create tools that create us can be studied for the first time in an exact way.

For example, Christoph Adami et al. make this point in Evolution of biological complexity:

To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase. [10]

For example, David J. Earl and Michael W. Deem make this point in Evolvability is a selectable trait:

Not only has life evolved, but life has evolved to evolve. That is, correlations within protein structure have evolved, and mechanisms to manipulate these correlations have evolved in tandem. The rates at which the various events within the hierarchy of evolutionary moves occur are not random or arbitrary but are selected by Darwinian evolution. Sensibly, rapid or extreme environmental change leads to selection for greater evolvability. This selection is not forbidden by causality and is strongest on the largest-scale moves within the mutational hierarchy. Many observations within evolutionary biology, heretofore considered evolutionary happenstance or accidents, are explained by selection for evolvability. For example, the vertebrate immune system shows that the variable environment of antigens has provided selective pressure for the use of adaptable codons and low-fidelity polymerases during somatic hypermutation. A similar driving force for biased codon usage as a result of productively high mutation rates is observed in the hemagglutinin protein of influenza A. [11]

"Computer simulations of the evolution of linear sequences have demonstrated the importance of recombination of blocks of sequence rather than point mutagenesis alone. Repeated cycles of point mutagenesis, recombination, and selection should allow in vitro molecular evolution of complex sequences, such as proteins." [12] Evolutionary molecular engineering, also called directed evolution or in vitro molecular evolution involves the iterated cycle of mutation, multiplication with recombination, and selection of the fittest of individual molecules (proteins, DNA, and RNA). Natural evolution can be relived showing us possible paths from catalytic cycles based on proteins to based on RNA to based on DNA. [13] [14] [15] [16]

[edit] Evidence from speciation

[edit] Hawthorn fly

An interesting example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[7] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.[8]

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

There are no religious questions that deal with evolution or the big bang.

They're all scientific questions.

And there is plenty of evidence... it just requires rudimentary understanding of physics (there is no 'proof' in science - did you know that?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

LOL Hmmm...I am your typical mom. I dress most comfortably in jeans and t-shirts most of the time. I own my own home. I cook and even bake. I drive a van. If you passed me on the street you would not be able to pick me out of a crowd. My beliefs do not physically transform me into some hideous-looking monster. Do your beliefs make you look any different on the outside? Did your physical appearance change, or did you change the way you dress when you found your current belief system? Do you behave significantly different? If not, why would you think Atheists do? If so, maybe you are the non-conformist. You know what they say - "The insane person thinks they are the only ones sane. It's the rest of the world that's crazy."

The is substantial scientific evidence for Big Bang theory which has nothing to do with religion. If we look at the expansion of the universe and everything in it and we interpolate that motion backwards in time it appears that everything started at a single point in time and space. This view does not support or refute any religious doctrine. It's an observation.

Yes, yes I am incredibly weird. And this space is much much too small to explain the entire thing to you. I'm going to give you links and IF you want to learn anything, visit them and read what they have to say.

Now... I can understand that you may be too afraid to actually LEARN something, and if that's the case, feel free to denigrate the information I've set in front of you. Really... it's actually what I expect.

If you AREN'T afraid to learn something, visit those sites and let me know what you think (and again, like I said, I've provided links because this space is much MUCH too small for an adequate and thorough explanation).

The Big Bang theory depends on three assumptions:

1. The universality of physical laws

2. The cosmological principle

3. The Copernican principle

Also it has been generally stated that there are three observational pillars that support the Big Bang theory of cosmology. These are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements. Additionally, the observed correlation function of large-scale structure of the cosmos fits well with standard Big Bang theory.

You can't prove God exist either...

Uh em. First Id like to say whats your proof of "God" making the earth. Oh right you have a BOOK. A book which is mostly based on myths.. and myths arent real.Also I dont think god had a pen.THerefore obviously a man(because in the bible it discounts women) wrote it...now you could say it came to him in a dream...in my dream scooby doo came to me. So the real question is how are Atheists any more weird than Catholics, Christians, Judaism,and all the other religions. GET A CLUE YOU POMPOUS ***!

There is evidence, but it is not conclusive beyond the shadow of a doubt. That is why they are called theories, just like gravity is a theory.

The sky pixie worshipers like you have nothing for proof other than a piece of contrived man made fiction.

The reason that we do not list our evidence is that it is far to abundant to do so and is often more complex than a sky pixie worshiper can comprehend.

If you are too lazy or uneducated to understand science that is not our problem.

I don't "believe" the big bang theory, because I haven't seen any evidence that I understand (I'm not very good at math or science). I think it makes more sense than "god did it" because that brings up the question "Where did god come from?"

Thats wrong, and Im sorry but there are no magical creatures under my bed, why would there be something looking over me. The problem with humans is the world revolves around us, but nothing else, so people want to think another person made us, it didnt all start off with us. We will never be sure of the big bang thoery, that i will agree with, but its alot better than your theory

No disrespect, its fine with what you want to believe but dont disrespect others

If that's a parody of religious absurdity it's quite funny- that is the kind of ludicrous statements they make.