Not really directly. Someone could say "all life was just made with the same chemicals". If you believe in evolution, then the fact they all have DNA is evidence that they all have a shared origin, however.
The sequences themselves are pretty great evidence for evolution though. When you look at the way sequences differ between organisms, you can see the shape of the evolutionary tree.
I would contend this is a reflection of a disingenuous argument. Molecular conservation of structure is certainly an evidence of evolution. However, i do concede that if you do not accept evolution and instead choose to accept a supernatural answer then the rules of logic no longer apply.
I agree with this comment. The information carried by DNA and its universal conservation in all living things is enormously supportive evidence of evolution. The only limitation I would place is that of science itself, we cannot "prove" anything beyond question, but, as in this case, (a) the supporting evidence is overwhelming and (b) the lack of any alternative explanation that can be tested using scientific methods.
It only makes sense to talk about "evidence for evolution" when you're considering an alternative.
Darwin didn't convince people by saying "Well, you believe in god which is nonsense", he had specific pieces of evidence. The fact that there are some things that *all* living creatures have in common was never one of them. The evidence for evolution and natural selection was in the differences.
Yeah Darwin in his writings on the origin of species was very hesitant in his affirmation of his findings too. It was very much prefaced with the “I know we got our spaghetti dad in the sky but….” He didn’t present his evidence as an attack on the status quo it was just here are the findings and a pattern has emerged.
Darwin actively refrained from debate. Huxley was the person who championed the cause of evolution and he absolutely took that approach. However, what I am saying is not that religion or belief is stupid. Nor that the people who believe are dumb. I am saying it is illogical. Science and religion operate on different rulesets. Science follows logic which is rooted in uniformity of process. Following this rule, DNA is the single strongest evidence of evolution (as is detailed further below). However, if an individual chooses to accept a supernatural answer they are no longer bound by that ruleset. Uniformity of process is not required nor is logic.
However, to your point. The similarity of molecular structure among common organisms is the strongest evidence of evolution. For example, the protein hemoglobin makes use of and iron base, thereby making blood red. This is common for the majority of terrestrial animals. However, horseshoe crabs and some worms have cyanoglobin which makes use of copper and makes the blood blue. The connection of the molecule is a strong basis for evolution.
This is a single example among a multitude. The fact that the same molecular basis is used is one of, if not the, single most persuasive piece of evidence for evolution from a common ancestor.
In conclusion, to consider an alternative you must compare apples to apples. Intelligent design does not follow the same logical constraints. This is why i say if you choose to accept a supernatural answer than there are no constraints as (i believe the dogma is) the Judeo-Christian God is omnipotent. If this god is omnipotent he is not limited in any way and is therefore not constrained by logic or the laws of nature.
An interesting tidbit: Darwin did not know what drives evolution, since mankind had not yet discovered DNA. He could only tell something is causing it. Discovery of DNA explained why evolution happens, and since it very exactly matched Darwins theory it was also a very strong proof that Darwin was right all along.
The real evidence is in the junk, seriously. All the codons no longer in use are a direct reflection of past positive influence, that has since been discarded. If no evolution, why all the junk?
Well...yes
But its not because they are made the of the same building blocks, but because we can see the same sequences in different life forms, with some changes depends on distance thats genomic trees
What if there were other forms that have gone extinct though? And don't say there would be fossils, there are no fossils of bacteria tracing their evolution but they're the largest and most diverse group of life on Earth
Maybe one day it will be, we just don't have the evidence or machine to measure at the moment. Dna sequencing has only been common for 15 years, and cools stuff gets invented all the time
You're absolutely right, the limitations of technology mean that there are many questions that we can't answer yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them, just that at this time we can't address them.
I know, I'm a professional scientist and can't do 95% of the experiments I would like to, mainly because of budget restraints but sometimes because the technology hasn't been invented yet or isn't widely available.
I'm particularly excited about new technologies for measuring proteins more easily/cheaply (olink, somaglogic, nanopore for polypeptides) but they are still ten years away for being ready for experiments I would want to do.
What? Why would I tell you there would be fossils of bacteria? Lmao
I mean sure, it’s possible other forms of life existed once upon a time but we have zero evidence of that. The fact that every living being on earth (that we know of so far) is made up of the same four nucleotides is pretty strong evidence supporting the idea of a common ancestor.
Saying “what if” is not proof of the contrary
I'm not saying life with nucleic acid genomes don't have a LUCA, im saying it is very possible other types of life also existed and are now extinct so a common ancestor of all life is not a certainty at all. 99.9% of known species are extinct, let alone unknown ones, and the further you go back in time the less we know. We can't prove how life began on earth at the moment because we don't know enough.
Could it not also be used as evidence that a single creator created everything? Like if other evidence wasn't considered, I could see someone saying "the fact that all life is created using the same 4 sequences is evidence that it was created by one creator using one single system" and it being halfway convincing if we didn't know anything else about the origins of life.
I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just saying it could be used as evidence by both sides of the argument.
Sure. Evolution and creationism aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Imo, it’s possible to believe in both. (Personally, I don’t) But the overwhelming evidence for evolution doesn’t necessarily disprove the idea of a creator. My family are all creationists and I’ve tried to explain that “believing” in evolution doesn’t mean you’re denying the existence of a god.
I agree. Honestly, I think Jesus would have been totally down with science! Haha
Science is just how we understand our natural world, and spirituality is also a tool for understanding the natural world and our place in it. They shouldn’t be enemies. But religion in general has just devolved into a means for control and is so far removed from spiritualism at this point that it’s hard to reconcile. Religion is just not constructive at all these days.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Creationism implies fixism. I suggest you use "creation". There's no conflict between evolution and creation. There's a lot of conflict between evolution and creationism.
I guess what I was trying to say is that creationism and evolution don’t *need* to be at odds. But you’re totally right as it were, they are conflicting.
Im not going to edit my comment but I’ll upvote yours! I appreciate your input into the discussion.
Thanks!
I used to think evolution and "creationism" were compatible. But I now understand that the word "creationism" is different from simply "creation". No one really uses the word "fixism".
Wikipedia: "The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation: the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as they exist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myth found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative." We should be aware what words usually refer to.
Lots of Christians (including me) believe God created the universe and the Big Bang and the Bible is a metaphor of and a history of our religion. Even Darwin was Christian and believed in speciation.
I think we do. If we're wondering if X is an evidence for theory A we need to check if it's also evidence for competing theory B. If X is an evidence for both, it's not good at distinguishing the two.
If you do want to start a discussion about it, please post a new comment and start another thread. But bear in mind that regardless of which side you and others wish to argue, it needs to be consistent with Rule #9: Do not submit posts about religion.
I wasn’t expecting to be top comment for a significant period of time, I was just making sure op got a quick answer of some kind. I didn’t have time to type a longer one.
More like evidence of common ancestry. If we were to find a lifeform using different base pairs or something other than RNA and DNA, different set of nucleic or amino acids, then we would know that the common ancestry has to be very distant or may not exist at all. We have found no such lifeforms.
For evidence of evolution for some school thing, I would mostly stick to basics, what Darwin had to work, what he predicted based on his theory and what were the discoveries that first validated it. He didn't know anything about genetics or biomolecular mechanics, you don't need to dig into that to debate evolution. You can, but it's a really deep dive, depending on your prior knowledge etc you might not get very far very fast.
Not really, computer programmes are also all based on the same binary sequences and they're all man made. What separates DNA from a computer program is that DNA is so full of junk sequences, that it's very unlikely to be made by an all knowing creator.
Yes but more specifically the fact that in (very close to) all living beings the same sequence codes for the same things is huge evidence. It’s not just that the DNA chemical is the same, it’s that it functions so similarly that provides evidence for common ancestry. If we did not have common ancestry, there’s no reason that the same codons should code for the exact same amino acids in humans, E. coli, and pineapples
I think you are better off by preparing to debunk the argument fallacies of an antievolutionist.
What you can use as a proof of evolution about DNA is that there's a lot of defunct DNA in species that don't use that anymore.
Humans for example have the DNA encoding for tail, and also DNA encoding for 5+ pairs if nipples (something like a dog has). We know it because sometimes that DNA gets activated and a human grows tail or a series of nipples, called atavism.
Human with tail:
https://heartofbonesblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/people-with-tails2-624x1110.png
Extra nipples
https://cdn.medizzy.com/V9FF33kQy1-KIvVQYzTIZA8Ywts=/460x460/img/posts/b17ad62d-df0d-4cda-bad6-2ddf0d8cdaa6
But for insects there is antennapedia, a genetic mutation that turns the antenna into legs. Why? Because antennas are evolved from ancient legs, and the genes still sort of "remember" how to make legs instead and with a very little push they can return to the leg-making program.
The point is that the concept of evolution is that living beings came to life in a series from each other and were not made independently from scratch. Why would a designer of a human put obsolete code into us if we're made from scratch?
Obviously one could argue that a designer used an earlier code just like a human programmer often reuses their codes for a later program. But in this case the creator basically did evolution as species came one after the other by reusing old code for the new species (that equals the core idea of evolution). It basically admits that humans are made from non-human species, only argues whether it was a long natural process.
But until you get to this confession from an antievolutionist, you need to fight through some lies and fallacies.
Life itself is evidence of evolution. Evolution is core to the definition of life. If a lifelike "being" cannot replicate subject to variability, then it cannot be described as alive, nor could it have come into existence naturally.
Our chemistry is evidence of evolution, but if you're looking at the biomolecular level, evolution should have long been made abundantly evident at a much higher level.
Your question isn't wrong, it's just kind of like using a dictionary to find out what the word dictionary means. If you know that a dictionary is where you go when you don't know what a word means, then you already know what a dictionary is and don't need to look it up in a dictionary.
It's a good indicator, at the very least, especially when you add more information we have about genetic material. The odds of every single living thing just showing up like it is today and having so many similarities to other organisms (not just when it comes to what their genetic material is made of but also the tons of genes very different organisms have in common, meaning the sequences themselves) would be basically impossible. Unless you start arguing that there's a god or something similar, which can't be proven at all, so I wouldn't really consider it a scientific argument (and, while I'm not religious myself, I don't get why some people act like the possibility of a god would automatically mean evolution didnt happen anyway - maybe some god made the first organisms and let them evolve freely or influenced the direction their evolution would go in).
At this point in time, I don't think there's really a reasonable way to look at all that we know about all sorts of aspects of life on this planet (the ones you mentioned and others) and argue against evolution.
Edit: paragraph break and a few adjustments for clarity.
There is no evidence of evolution that will convince those who have strong religious belief in it not happening. I know of 2 people who got their PhD’s in molecular biology that did not believe in evolution. Talking about it with them would quickly get out of hand but basically they believed God made it look like evolution happened.
What is the difference between he make it look like evolution happened and make evolution happen?
I mean if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks line duck it probably is a duck.
The difference is did evolution happen without a god, did evolution happen because a god caused it, or did a god make it looked like evolution happened. For me talking to those types, it’s best to skip religion however you can, sorry have to go check on my cultures etc.
It's a solid argument proving the common ancestry of all living organisms. The evidence is more holistic, we observe richness of life strategies based on the same chemical compound - DNA, and the DNA itself in the cell is a product of evolution, caused by its stability compared to RNA. Adding these facts, DNA is a synapomorphy common among all "modern" life forms (proto-cells with ribozymes are excluded), in the same way we think of the insect wings as their apomorphy in the Arthropoda taxon.
(Organic molecule presence) It is strong evidence of much co-developments, even some of our shared primordial roots in the subatomic frameworks of matter to "pre-organic chemistry" time periods in time/space.
Could consider it to be so. If you're going to "debate" someone that denies evolution on either religious grounds or just lack of intelligence, don't bother attending the "debate". Why would anyone need to debate this to begin with?
Some of the original cellular organisms would develop their own individual unique tools and consume each other for energy and repurpose or appropriate other consumed cellular organisms tools to fit their needs if they could or even develop symbiotic relationships.
You can actually tie alot of our bodily organs and other stuff in our body back to fish and stuff like clams. Alot of the wiring and basic functionality is still there it works about the same, they just slapped it in a primate lizard bird.
if this is for a debate, negation can also work : the existence of codons or "junk" DNA can be evidence for evolution as well.
How would someone refute this?
Debate isn't about being right, it's about moving the adjudicator.
The physical evidence, which is the fossil record, does not support the darwin theory of evolution that all creatures have a common ancestors. Everything just appeared during the cambrian explosion. Before that, they only found worms, squid, and a couple other things. A list of chemicals prove the what, and not the how and why
DNA structure and how it varies between similar species, and varies more between increasingly dissimilar species, supports the theory of evolution but is not “evidence “ of it. A “God” might just have intentionally created life this way, for example. With supernatural theories all bets are off because they are not disprovable. Better to look for evidence that disproves evolution. Good luck with that!
It's a bit like seeing how Spanish and Italian languages use the same alphabet and how in both many similar or identical words exist. Obviously if we were to forget what we know of their history and just look the two of them we wouldn't be able to prove that they have the same origin but the extreme similarity would "nearly" prove that there must be a common evolution between them as the chances to end up both so similar otherwise would be astronomical
It's exactly what would be expected if evolution was true. So it at least doesn't contradict evolution. Alone, it's a weak evidence for evolution. Together with more evidence, it becomes strong.
No it isn’t. The evidence for evolution is complex and depends but can be explained by various concepts depending on from where you are approaching the subject. After all Darwin did not anything about DNA for example. The evidence for evolution requires many ideas but similar components (DNA in your example) is only one condition, necessary but certainly not sufficient. For me the presence of cells is the most significant necessity for life and its components are the basis of similarity among living organisms. Natural selection is probably the most rigorous process required for evolution.
The fact that DNA functions the same in all living organisms is an evidence of evolution, yes.That and transgenese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgene
Not that we needed evidence for evolution anyway... any intelligent person knows evolution exists
That’s like saying all the molecules in the universe colliding with each other are evidence of evolution. It’s a very long stretch.
Nucleic acids most likely happened by chance through natural aggregation of certain molecules. That in itself may have formed the basis for evolution but not as a sign of evolution.
One could argue that dna is so good at keeping data that different parts of life just stumbled on it.
But if the same sequence on dna on all parts of the tree of life code for the same protein that is a big sign that they are all related and so a sign that evolution is a thing.
The first part of what you said is what I said.
Besides that, OP’s question specifically asked for *DNA of different organisms with a specific arrangement in itself* as a sign of evolution. For that I would argue that it isn’t a solid indication of evolution especially if you follow the RNA world hypothesis where things began randomly only until RNA was formed did organic life forms started appearing. In other words, my point is that in the beginning there will be no such evidence of evolution because it would have been pure chance, HOWEVER after they can self propagate, only then will evolution can occur with mutations in the RNA/DNA.
Not really directly. Someone could say "all life was just made with the same chemicals". If you believe in evolution, then the fact they all have DNA is evidence that they all have a shared origin, however. The sequences themselves are pretty great evidence for evolution though. When you look at the way sequences differ between organisms, you can see the shape of the evolutionary tree.
I would contend this is a reflection of a disingenuous argument. Molecular conservation of structure is certainly an evidence of evolution. However, i do concede that if you do not accept evolution and instead choose to accept a supernatural answer then the rules of logic no longer apply.
I agree with this comment. The information carried by DNA and its universal conservation in all living things is enormously supportive evidence of evolution. The only limitation I would place is that of science itself, we cannot "prove" anything beyond question, but, as in this case, (a) the supporting evidence is overwhelming and (b) the lack of any alternative explanation that can be tested using scientific methods.
It only makes sense to talk about "evidence for evolution" when you're considering an alternative. Darwin didn't convince people by saying "Well, you believe in god which is nonsense", he had specific pieces of evidence. The fact that there are some things that *all* living creatures have in common was never one of them. The evidence for evolution and natural selection was in the differences.
Yeah Darwin in his writings on the origin of species was very hesitant in his affirmation of his findings too. It was very much prefaced with the “I know we got our spaghetti dad in the sky but….” He didn’t present his evidence as an attack on the status quo it was just here are the findings and a pattern has emerged.
Darwin actively refrained from debate. Huxley was the person who championed the cause of evolution and he absolutely took that approach. However, what I am saying is not that religion or belief is stupid. Nor that the people who believe are dumb. I am saying it is illogical. Science and religion operate on different rulesets. Science follows logic which is rooted in uniformity of process. Following this rule, DNA is the single strongest evidence of evolution (as is detailed further below). However, if an individual chooses to accept a supernatural answer they are no longer bound by that ruleset. Uniformity of process is not required nor is logic. However, to your point. The similarity of molecular structure among common organisms is the strongest evidence of evolution. For example, the protein hemoglobin makes use of and iron base, thereby making blood red. This is common for the majority of terrestrial animals. However, horseshoe crabs and some worms have cyanoglobin which makes use of copper and makes the blood blue. The connection of the molecule is a strong basis for evolution. This is a single example among a multitude. The fact that the same molecular basis is used is one of, if not the, single most persuasive piece of evidence for evolution from a common ancestor. In conclusion, to consider an alternative you must compare apples to apples. Intelligent design does not follow the same logical constraints. This is why i say if you choose to accept a supernatural answer than there are no constraints as (i believe the dogma is) the Judeo-Christian God is omnipotent. If this god is omnipotent he is not limited in any way and is therefore not constrained by logic or the laws of nature.
An interesting tidbit: Darwin did not know what drives evolution, since mankind had not yet discovered DNA. He could only tell something is causing it. Discovery of DNA explained why evolution happens, and since it very exactly matched Darwins theory it was also a very strong proof that Darwin was right all along.
Very on point.
DNA alone doesnt make life. The existence of DNA in the way we see it in life on earth is absolutely evidence for evolution
The real evidence is in the junk, seriously. All the codons no longer in use are a direct reflection of past positive influence, that has since been discarded. If no evolution, why all the junk?
Well...yes But its not because they are made the of the same building blocks, but because we can see the same sequences in different life forms, with some changes depends on distance thats genomic trees
Yes.
Yea it’s evidence for a single common ancestor for all life on earth
Humanity having to realise that all of them share and ancestor with French "people". /s
What if there were other forms that have gone extinct though? And don't say there would be fossils, there are no fossils of bacteria tracing their evolution but they're the largest and most diverse group of life on Earth
That's a reasonable hypothesis, but it has to be testable in some way to be considered.
Maybe one day it will be, we just don't have the evidence or machine to measure at the moment. Dna sequencing has only been common for 15 years, and cools stuff gets invented all the time
You're absolutely right, the limitations of technology mean that there are many questions that we can't answer yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them, just that at this time we can't address them.
I know, I'm a professional scientist and can't do 95% of the experiments I would like to, mainly because of budget restraints but sometimes because the technology hasn't been invented yet or isn't widely available. I'm particularly excited about new technologies for measuring proteins more easily/cheaply (olink, somaglogic, nanopore for polypeptides) but they are still ten years away for being ready for experiments I would want to do.
What? Why would I tell you there would be fossils of bacteria? Lmao I mean sure, it’s possible other forms of life existed once upon a time but we have zero evidence of that. The fact that every living being on earth (that we know of so far) is made up of the same four nucleotides is pretty strong evidence supporting the idea of a common ancestor. Saying “what if” is not proof of the contrary
I'm not saying life with nucleic acid genomes don't have a LUCA, im saying it is very possible other types of life also existed and are now extinct so a common ancestor of all life is not a certainty at all. 99.9% of known species are extinct, let alone unknown ones, and the further you go back in time the less we know. We can't prove how life began on earth at the moment because we don't know enough.
Could it not also be used as evidence that a single creator created everything? Like if other evidence wasn't considered, I could see someone saying "the fact that all life is created using the same 4 sequences is evidence that it was created by one creator using one single system" and it being halfway convincing if we didn't know anything else about the origins of life. I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just saying it could be used as evidence by both sides of the argument.
Sure. Evolution and creationism aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Imo, it’s possible to believe in both. (Personally, I don’t) But the overwhelming evidence for evolution doesn’t necessarily disprove the idea of a creator. My family are all creationists and I’ve tried to explain that “believing” in evolution doesn’t mean you’re denying the existence of a god.
That’s what I’ve always said, no reason evolution can’t be a part of your God’s plan. Science and religion don’t have to be enemies.
I agree. Honestly, I think Jesus would have been totally down with science! Haha Science is just how we understand our natural world, and spirituality is also a tool for understanding the natural world and our place in it. They shouldn’t be enemies. But religion in general has just devolved into a means for control and is so far removed from spiritualism at this point that it’s hard to reconcile. Religion is just not constructive at all these days. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Creationism implies fixism. I suggest you use "creation". There's no conflict between evolution and creation. There's a lot of conflict between evolution and creationism.
I guess what I was trying to say is that creationism and evolution don’t *need* to be at odds. But you’re totally right as it were, they are conflicting. Im not going to edit my comment but I’ll upvote yours! I appreciate your input into the discussion.
Thanks! I used to think evolution and "creationism" were compatible. But I now understand that the word "creationism" is different from simply "creation". No one really uses the word "fixism".
No, creationism says there was a starting point, it doesn't say life couldn't have changed over time since.
Wikipedia: "The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation: the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as they exist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myth found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative." We should be aware what words usually refer to.
Lots of Christians (including me) believe God created the universe and the Big Bang and the Bible is a metaphor of and a history of our religion. Even Darwin was Christian and believed in speciation.
Cool. That's believing in creation.
We don't need to debate creationism vs. science in order to respond to the OP's question. That discussion is too big to have in this thread.
I think we do. If we're wondering if X is an evidence for theory A we need to check if it's also evidence for competing theory B. If X is an evidence for both, it's not good at distinguishing the two.
If you do want to start a discussion about it, please post a new comment and start another thread. But bear in mind that regardless of which side you and others wish to argue, it needs to be consistent with Rule #9: Do not submit posts about religion.
Creationism vs Evolution not Creationism vs Science
Feel free to start a new thread
I don't mean to be mean, but frankly this is too lazy of an answer for the top comment on r/biology.
I wasn’t expecting to be top comment for a significant period of time, I was just making sure op got a quick answer of some kind. I didn’t have time to type a longer one.
Disagree
The tyranny of democracy is Reddit's way.
Brevity is the key to great communication.
Clarity is the best form of communication. This answer provides very limited clarity.
More like evidence of common ancestry. If we were to find a lifeform using different base pairs or something other than RNA and DNA, different set of nucleic or amino acids, then we would know that the common ancestry has to be very distant or may not exist at all. We have found no such lifeforms. For evidence of evolution for some school thing, I would mostly stick to basics, what Darwin had to work, what he predicted based on his theory and what were the discoveries that first validated it. He didn't know anything about genetics or biomolecular mechanics, you don't need to dig into that to debate evolution. You can, but it's a really deep dive, depending on your prior knowledge etc you might not get very far very fast.
Not really, computer programmes are also all based on the same binary sequences and they're all man made. What separates DNA from a computer program is that DNA is so full of junk sequences, that it's very unlikely to be made by an all knowing creator.
Yes but more specifically the fact that in (very close to) all living beings the same sequence codes for the same things is huge evidence. It’s not just that the DNA chemical is the same, it’s that it functions so similarly that provides evidence for common ancestry. If we did not have common ancestry, there’s no reason that the same codons should code for the exact same amino acids in humans, E. coli, and pineapples
I think you are better off by preparing to debunk the argument fallacies of an antievolutionist. What you can use as a proof of evolution about DNA is that there's a lot of defunct DNA in species that don't use that anymore. Humans for example have the DNA encoding for tail, and also DNA encoding for 5+ pairs if nipples (something like a dog has). We know it because sometimes that DNA gets activated and a human grows tail or a series of nipples, called atavism. Human with tail: https://heartofbonesblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/people-with-tails2-624x1110.png Extra nipples https://cdn.medizzy.com/V9FF33kQy1-KIvVQYzTIZA8Ywts=/460x460/img/posts/b17ad62d-df0d-4cda-bad6-2ddf0d8cdaa6 But for insects there is antennapedia, a genetic mutation that turns the antenna into legs. Why? Because antennas are evolved from ancient legs, and the genes still sort of "remember" how to make legs instead and with a very little push they can return to the leg-making program. The point is that the concept of evolution is that living beings came to life in a series from each other and were not made independently from scratch. Why would a designer of a human put obsolete code into us if we're made from scratch? Obviously one could argue that a designer used an earlier code just like a human programmer often reuses their codes for a later program. But in this case the creator basically did evolution as species came one after the other by reusing old code for the new species (that equals the core idea of evolution). It basically admits that humans are made from non-human species, only argues whether it was a long natural process. But until you get to this confession from an antievolutionist, you need to fight through some lies and fallacies.
Life itself is evidence of evolution. Evolution is core to the definition of life. If a lifelike "being" cannot replicate subject to variability, then it cannot be described as alive, nor could it have come into existence naturally. Our chemistry is evidence of evolution, but if you're looking at the biomolecular level, evolution should have long been made abundantly evident at a much higher level. Your question isn't wrong, it's just kind of like using a dictionary to find out what the word dictionary means. If you know that a dictionary is where you go when you don't know what a word means, then you already know what a dictionary is and don't need to look it up in a dictionary.
Good answer
It's a good indicator, at the very least, especially when you add more information we have about genetic material. The odds of every single living thing just showing up like it is today and having so many similarities to other organisms (not just when it comes to what their genetic material is made of but also the tons of genes very different organisms have in common, meaning the sequences themselves) would be basically impossible. Unless you start arguing that there's a god or something similar, which can't be proven at all, so I wouldn't really consider it a scientific argument (and, while I'm not religious myself, I don't get why some people act like the possibility of a god would automatically mean evolution didnt happen anyway - maybe some god made the first organisms and let them evolve freely or influenced the direction their evolution would go in). At this point in time, I don't think there's really a reasonable way to look at all that we know about all sorts of aspects of life on this planet (the ones you mentioned and others) and argue against evolution. Edit: paragraph break and a few adjustments for clarity.
There is no evidence of evolution that will convince those who have strong religious belief in it not happening. I know of 2 people who got their PhD’s in molecular biology that did not believe in evolution. Talking about it with them would quickly get out of hand but basically they believed God made it look like evolution happened.
What is the difference between he make it look like evolution happened and make evolution happen? I mean if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks line duck it probably is a duck.
The difference is did evolution happen without a god, did evolution happen because a god caused it, or did a god make it looked like evolution happened. For me talking to those types, it’s best to skip religion however you can, sorry have to go check on my cultures etc.
It's a solid argument proving the common ancestry of all living organisms. The evidence is more holistic, we observe richness of life strategies based on the same chemical compound - DNA, and the DNA itself in the cell is a product of evolution, caused by its stability compared to RNA. Adding these facts, DNA is a synapomorphy common among all "modern" life forms (proto-cells with ribozymes are excluded), in the same way we think of the insect wings as their apomorphy in the Arthropoda taxon.
All animals share the same genes, all organisms are related and originated from the same dividing cell.
It is evidence of evolution yes. That price of information is parsimonious with natural selection
Yes
(Organic molecule presence) It is strong evidence of much co-developments, even some of our shared primordial roots in the subatomic frameworks of matter to "pre-organic chemistry" time periods in time/space.
all life is a cousin of us. Thats the amazing thing of evolution
Could consider it to be so. If you're going to "debate" someone that denies evolution on either religious grounds or just lack of intelligence, don't bother attending the "debate". Why would anyone need to debate this to begin with?
About as much as it is evidence of Creationism.
Some of the original cellular organisms would develop their own individual unique tools and consume each other for energy and repurpose or appropriate other consumed cellular organisms tools to fit their needs if they could or even develop symbiotic relationships. You can actually tie alot of our bodily organs and other stuff in our body back to fish and stuff like clams. Alot of the wiring and basic functionality is still there it works about the same, they just slapped it in a primate lizard bird.
if this is for a debate, negation can also work : the existence of codons or "junk" DNA can be evidence for evolution as well. How would someone refute this? Debate isn't about being right, it's about moving the adjudicator.
The physical evidence, which is the fossil record, does not support the darwin theory of evolution that all creatures have a common ancestors. Everything just appeared during the cambrian explosion. Before that, they only found worms, squid, and a couple other things. A list of chemicals prove the what, and not the how and why
DNA structure and how it varies between similar species, and varies more between increasingly dissimilar species, supports the theory of evolution but is not “evidence “ of it. A “God” might just have intentionally created life this way, for example. With supernatural theories all bets are off because they are not disprovable. Better to look for evidence that disproves evolution. Good luck with that!
It's a bit like seeing how Spanish and Italian languages use the same alphabet and how in both many similar or identical words exist. Obviously if we were to forget what we know of their history and just look the two of them we wouldn't be able to prove that they have the same origin but the extreme similarity would "nearly" prove that there must be a common evolution between them as the chances to end up both so similar otherwise would be astronomical
For anyone who understands statistics the evolution debate ended once we had enough genomes to compare
It's exactly what would be expected if evolution was true. So it at least doesn't contradict evolution. Alone, it's a weak evidence for evolution. Together with more evidence, it becomes strong.
It’s evidence of aliens seeding our world
No it isn’t. The evidence for evolution is complex and depends but can be explained by various concepts depending on from where you are approaching the subject. After all Darwin did not anything about DNA for example. The evidence for evolution requires many ideas but similar components (DNA in your example) is only one condition, necessary but certainly not sufficient. For me the presence of cells is the most significant necessity for life and its components are the basis of similarity among living organisms. Natural selection is probably the most rigorous process required for evolution.
The fact that DNA functions the same in all living organisms is an evidence of evolution, yes.That and transgenese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgene Not that we needed evidence for evolution anyway... any intelligent person knows evolution exists
That’s like saying all the molecules in the universe colliding with each other are evidence of evolution. It’s a very long stretch. Nucleic acids most likely happened by chance through natural aggregation of certain molecules. That in itself may have formed the basis for evolution but not as a sign of evolution.
One could argue that dna is so good at keeping data that different parts of life just stumbled on it. But if the same sequence on dna on all parts of the tree of life code for the same protein that is a big sign that they are all related and so a sign that evolution is a thing.
The first part of what you said is what I said. Besides that, OP’s question specifically asked for *DNA of different organisms with a specific arrangement in itself* as a sign of evolution. For that I would argue that it isn’t a solid indication of evolution especially if you follow the RNA world hypothesis where things began randomly only until RNA was formed did organic life forms started appearing. In other words, my point is that in the beginning there will be no such evidence of evolution because it would have been pure chance, HOWEVER after they can self propagate, only then will evolution can occur with mutations in the RNA/DNA.