Viva la Evolucion: the twilight of the Gods

Mononoke

Member
Sep 12, 2009
443
7
0
The purpose of this thread is to present some of the arguments for evolution, and against creationism, which are scattered around the internet. I respectfully ask everybody not to post on this thread itself, since I intend to update this thread on daily basis. Use the companion thread which I will aptly name "Viva la Evolucion: The Discussion" if you want to argue with me or amongst yourself.
 

Mononoke

Member
Sep 12, 2009
443
7
0
Superbugs: Creationists don't beleive in medicine

Superbugs aka Resistant Disease

You worry about what's going to kill us all. You worry about chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons... Will Osama bin Laden lead an army of crazy terrorists to kill us? Will North Korea spark an atomic cataclysm? Forget all that. You want to know what's going to kill us all? Penicillin.
Because of the rampant misuse of antibiotics and antiviral medications, bacteria and viruses are evolving into superbugs.
The next time someone tries to tell you there's no such thing as evolution, tell them about drug-resistant staph. Survival of the fittest is alive and well in the world. And you're not the fittest, in case you were wondering.
Here's how it works. For decades, doctors routinely prescribed antibiotics like penicillin for just about any complaint, sometimes even without a real diagnosis. And why not? Germs are germs, and antibiotics kill germs.
When you kill germs with antibiotics, however, a few germs survive. The germs that survive are tougher than the germs that were killed. When you use antibiotics all the time, you create evolutionary pressure. The surviving germs reproduce and pass their genes for toughness on to the next generation.

The problem was worsened by well-meaning parents from the '50s through the '90s. June Cleaver gets a penicillin prescription for young Beaver's strep throat. The prescription lasts for a week. The Beave is feeling better by Day Four, so June stops giving him the pills and saves them for a rainy day.
On the bright side, June saves herself a trip to the doctor the next time Beaver gets a sore throat. If June had forced Beaver to keep taking the antibiotic for the whole seven days, it might have killed off the whole infection. But when you stop the antibiotic on Day Four, a pretty fair number of the more resilient germs survive, even when the symptoms have ended.
Forty years ago, there were no statistically identifiable strains of drug-resistant streptococcal infection (strep throat). From 1997 to 2002 alone, the number of reported incidents tripled.
Germs also evolve to evade antibiotics by reproducing faster and becoming more contagious, becoming more deadly in the process. By 2004, around 40% of life-threatening strep infections (i.e., pneumonia) were estimated to be resistant to at least two antibiotics.

And it's not just bacterial infections, either. Consider HIV, the AIDS virus. There is no drug that is proven to eliminate HIV. At best, HIV drug treatments simply reduce the amount of HIV in the blood. As a result, HIV is continually evolving into tougher and more deadly mutant strains. Even if you stop the drug treatment, the virus usually doesn't fully revert to the more innocuous form. And it's not just germs either. Pesticides have the same effect on insects. Hit your apartment with a roach bomb, and the two roaches that survive will breed tougher roaches. The same mechanic applies. Evolution forces the roaches to first become resistant to your first choice of pesticide, then become resistant to all forms of pesticide, then become tougher and meaner in every respect.
At the same time that the germs are getting tougher, we're getting weaker. Consider myopia. Although there are environmental factors that complicate the issue, the fact is that myopia was a severe impediment to survival 400 years ago. Today, it's increasing at epidemic levels around the industrialized world. Since the commoditization of eyeglasses, myopia no longer disqualifies you from living long enough to reproduce in an urban environment.
Although there's a vehement (and boring) argument about whether the primary cause of myopia is genetic or environmental, it's pretty easy to see that there would still be a lot less nearsightedness if 20/20 vision was required in order to survive and reproduce. There might also be a lot fewer people in general, but the ones who survived would have good vision.
Evolution cuts both ways. We've been treating diseases with antibiotics for six decades now, three or four generations. The body's natural immune systems are not as crucial to survival as they once were. Instead, we've relied on drug treatments to deal with disease. Our depleted immune systems are now open to further insult, such as the development of diseases that directly target immune response, HIV being the most notable example. Assuming the bugs give us a few more generations before wiping us out entirely, the drugs should stop working completely right about the time that the human immune system reaches its all-time low.
creationism6.GIF


Admittedly, some bugs can and do evolve to protect themselves against the built-in human immune system. But our bodies employ a variety of tactics to get rid of infections, which helps lessen the short-term risk. Antibiotics have (until recently) been used prolifically, and they all work pretty much the same way, so the germs can adapt much more quickly.
Although we've been doing things wrong for considerably less than a century, there's a huge disparity in the evolutionary speed of humans vs. germs. Because humans are so complex and because a generation of humans takes 15-20 years to reach optimum reproduction age, it takes a lot longer for evolutionary progressions to take place on a systemic basis (devolution is faster because the genes for inferior traits like nearsightedness already exist in the population).
In contrast, germs measure their generations in minutes. Strep and staph, two of the most common bacteria, can produce multiple generations with a matter of hours. That means 20,000 or 50,000 generations of strep are produced for every one human generation. Bacteria also mutate much more easily than humans.
So what's the bright side? Well, some humans are smart enough to figure out that this problem exists. Hopefully, those humans are smart enough to figure out solutions as well. Right now, the best solutions are only slowing the problem. Tactics in the war on bugs include:
superbugs3.jpg


  • Avoiding the use of antibiotics for minor infections, and letting the body's immune system handle routine colds and sore throats.
  • Rotating the use of specific drugs or pesticides, instead of using the same ones all the time.
  • Designing new kinds of drugs and treatments, such as genetic therapies, so that we're not constantly subjecting germs to the same tactics.
  • Treating diseases with "drug cocktails" that simultaneously attack a micro-organism in more than one way.
  • Designing treatments that specifically target the reproduction of bacteria and viruses, which is key to the process of evolving a resistance.
So far, these tactics have not been strikingly effective. The problem is that resistance is already in the gene pool out there in the real world. It's great that we're slowing the development of new forms of resistant diseases, but Pandora's Box doesn't close so easily.
Additionally, some diseases are simply adapting to the above tactics. Because there isn't a treatment that can purge your body completely of HIV, the AIDS virus is particularly effective at evolving new and dangerous strains that are resistant to drug cocktails and rotating treatments. Recent reports also suggest that HIV may be evolving into a more deadly and faster-spreading form, but it's a little early to panic on that front yet.
Fortunately for us all, nature does have a way of correcting itself in these situations. Unfortunately, that way is known as an epidemic. When a disease evolves into a sufficiently deadly and contagious strain, it rips through a population, killing off the weak and ensuring that the strong survive and pass their genes to the next generation.
We haven't reached that stage. Yet. We might avoid it, if we're clever enough. At the moment, however, the smart money is probably on the bugs.
Source
 
Last edited:

Mononoke

Member
Sep 12, 2009
443
7
0
The third eyelid was for FLOOD purposes of the biblical kind

Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man


Through history, as natural selection played its part in the development of modern man, many of the useful functions and parts of the human body become unnecessary. What is most fascinating is that many of these parts of the body still remain in some form so we can see the progress of evolution. This list covers the ten most significant evolutionary changes that have taken place – leaving signs behind them.

10 Goose Bumps
Cutis Anserina


Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dog’s hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupine’s quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger – hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it.

9 Jacobson’s Organ
Vomeronasal organ


Jacobson’s organ is a fascinating part of animal anatomy and it tells us a lot about our own sexual history. The organ is in the nose and it is a special “smell” organ which detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). It is this organ that allows some animals to track others for sex and to know of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobson’s organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless. Once upon a time, humans would have used this organ to locate mates when communication was not possible. Single’s evenings, chat rooms, and bars have now taken its place in the process of human mate-seeking.

8 Junk DNA
L-gulonolactone oxidase


While many of the hangovers from our “devolved” past are visible or physical, this is not true for all. Humans have structures in their genetic make-up that were once used to produces enzymes to process vitamin C (it is called L-gulonolactone oxidase). Most other animals have this functioning DNA but at some point in our history, a mutation disbled the gene – whilst leaving behind its remnants as junk DNA. This particular junk DNA indicates a common ancestry with other species on earth, so it is particularly interesting.

7 Extra Ear Muscles
Auriculares muscles


Also known as the extrinsic ear muscles, the auriculares muscles are used by animals to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) in order to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have the muscles that we would once have used for the very same reason – but our muscles are now so feeble that all they can do is give our ears a little wiggle. The use of these muscles in cats is very visible (as they can nearly turn their ears completely backwards) – particularly when they are stalking a bird and need to make the smallest movements possible so as to not frighten its future meal.

6 Plantaris Muscle


The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet – something you see with apes who seem to be able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.

5 Wisdom Teeth


Early humans ate a lot of plants – and they needed to eat them quickly enough that they could eat a sufficient amount in one day to get all of the nutrients they needed. For this reason, we had an extra set of molars to make the larger mouth more productive. This was particularly essential as the body lacked the ability to sufficiently digest cellulose. As evolution made its selections, our diets changed, our jaws grew appropriately smaller, and our third molars became unnecessary. Some human populations have now all but completely stopped growing wisdom teeth, while others have almost 100% likelihood of developing them.

4 Third Eyelid


If you watch a cat blink, you will see a white membrane cross its eye – that is called its third eyelid. It is quite a rare thing in mammals, but common in birds, reptiles, and fish. Humans have a remnant (but non-working) third eyelid (you can see it in the picture above). It has become quite small in humans, but some populations have more visible portions than others. There is only one known species of primate that still has a functioning third eyelid, and that is the Calabar angwantibo (closely related to lorises) which lives in West Africa.

3 Darwin’s Point
plica semilunaris


Darwin’s point is found in the majority of mammals, and humans are no exception. It is most likely used to help focus sounds in animals, but it no longer has a function in humans. Only 10.4% of the human population still has this visible left-over mark of our past, but it is possible that a much larger number of people carry the gene that produces it as it does not always cause the ear tubercle to appear. The point (shown in the picture above) is a small thick nodule at the junction of the upper and middle sections of the ear.

2 Coccyx


The coccyx is the remnant of what was once a human tail. Over time we lost the need for a tail (as tree swinging was replaced by hanging out at the local water hole grunting neanderthal gossip), but we did not lose the need for the coccyx: it now functions as a support structure for various muscles and a support for a person when he sits down and leans back. The coccyx also supports the position of the anus.

1 Appendix



The appendix has no known use in modern humans and is often removed when it becomes infected. While its original use is still speculated on, most scientists agree with Darwin’s suggestion that it once helped to process the cellulose found in the leaf-rich diet that we once had. Over the course of evolution, as our diet has changed, the appendix became less useful. What is particularly interesting is that many evolutionary theorists believe that natural selection (while removing all of the abilities of the appendix) selects larger appendices because they are less likely to become inflamed and diseased. So unlike the little toe, which may eventually vanish and is equally useless, the appendix is likely to stay with us for a long time – just hanging around doing nothing.
Contributor: JFrater
Source
 
Last edited:

Mononoke

Member
Sep 12, 2009
443
7
0
God introduces a new bird

God Introduces New Bird

October 9, 2009 | Issue 45•41



THE HEAVENS—In what is being described by advance marketing materials as "the first divine creation in more than 6,000 years," God Almighty, Our Lord Most High, introduced a brand-new species of bird into existence Monday.
Enlarge Image God attends the launch of the new bird (inset).

"Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve, prepare thine eyes for the most exciting line of avian wildlife in millennia," God announced as He released an estimated 14 million first-run models into the important bird markets of North America, Australia, and Eurasia. "This new bird has it all: slicker wings, a more streamlined beak, better-than-ever capacity for beautiful song. Plus, all of the grace and majesty you've come to expect from the Eternal Creator of Life Itself."
"The bird is back," God continued, His booming voice parting the very heavens. "And baby, it's never looked better."
According to the latest specs, etched in two tablets of stone and handed down from atop Mount Sinai, the new bird is anticipated by God to be His finest creation to date. Available in two colors-—male and female—the bird reportedly combines everything God has learned from His previous works into one "new twist on an old favorite."
In keeping with tradition, the bird has not been given a name by God, who has left it to mankind to name all the animals.
"This came out at the perfect time," said Chet Clem, Chair of Biblical Science at Oral Roberts University. "God hadn't come out with anything in a long while, and people, quite frankly, were beginning to lose faith in Him. But this bird is totally worth the wait."
Added Clem, "It's classic God."
Enlarge Image An early blueprint for the design of the heaven-sent creature.

"Our Heavenly Father has really outdone Himself this time," ornithologist Dr. Avram Wasserbaum agreed. "Birds don't tend to be His strong suit—take the buzzard or the dodo, for instance. This latest bird, though, has all of God's patented design touches: splendor, grace, and an ineffable sense of timelessness. Trust me, once folks get a load of the brilliant plumage, this thing is really going to put God back on top."
"Plus, birds are hot right now," he added.
For His part, God has even gone so far as to call the new bird His "masterpiece."
"I'm telling you, I pulled out all the stops on this one," He said. "It looks kind of like a hawk, but it's more compact, and it has a smart, sexy flight pattern that has to be seen to be believed. And if that's not enough, get this: This bird eats insects, like a bat."
God's faith in His newest creation remains so high, in fact, that if it turns out to be as popular as expected, He plans to discontinue one of His less beloved species, such as the pigeon.
Not all, however, are impressed.
"The wingspan is not really doing it for me," said well-known creation critic Jean Krewson. "And does it always squawk like that? After six millennia, couldn't God have come up with something a little edgier to breathe life into? I hate to say it, but maybe the One Who Made Man Flesh is losing His touch."
"It's no bald eagle, that's for sure," he added.
Despite such criticisms, most humans remained united in praise of the new species, which is already surpassing previous records for bird popularity in all major wildlife sectors.
"Get 'em while supplies last," God said. "Or before they're hunted to total extinction."
terminator.gif
Source
 

Mononoke

Member
Sep 12, 2009
443
7
0
Noah Vs. Maths

Noah’s Ark vs. Math. Math Kills Noah’s Ark (Math Wins).


According to Creationists, all the animals alive today are descended from the pairs of animals Noah brought onto the Ark before The Flood which supposedly happened 4,000 years ago. According to the first creation story in Genesis, animals were created by God according to their own “kind”. Noah was instructed by God to bring animals of each kind onto the ark, and the term kind still plays a big part in Creationist thinking today. The problem is that no one seems to know what a kind is.

Does it simply mean species? That would seem to me to be the most obvious and easy answer, except there’s no way that all the species of multicellular land organisms could fit onto Noah’s Ark. It must be something taxonomically higher. There are still too many genera of extant animals to fit into an Ark, so that’s ruled out. Could it possibly be roughly analagous to families of animals?

I have heard Creationists speculate something similar. Cats are of one kind; bears are of one kind; equines are of one kind. Those categories do correspond to taxonomic families: Felidae, Ursidae, and Equidae. The different species of bear we have today descended from one species of bear, but they are all still part of the created kind “bear”. This is what Creationists call “microevolution”, which they readily accept. What they oppose is the concept of “macroevolution”, which would be one created kind transitioning into another: Artiodactyls into Cetaceans, or dinosaurs into birds.

So I decided to conduct a thought experiment to actually quantify the implications of this. For the sake of simplicity, I am only including mammals in this exercise.

According to Mammal Species of the World there exist today 5,400 mammal species in 153 familes. If the created kind is analogous to the taxonomic family, then Noah would have brought 153 pairs of mammals onto the ark, which afterwards diversified, via microevolution, a concept undeniable even to Creationists, into the 5,400 extant species. Since The Flood supposedly occurred 4,000 years ago, this would have had to happen very quickly.

In fact, according to some simple division, there would have had to be an average of 1.31 new mammal species arising every year! Wow! Microevolution is exponentially faster than macroevolution!

Except, waitaminnitwhat??? One of the most repeated “arguments” Creationists use is that if evolution really happened, surely someone, somewhere, in all of human history would have witnessed it! Aside from the fact that we actually have witnessed it, both directly in bacteria, and indirectly through the fossil record, what about the ridiculous amount of microevolution that would have needed to occur since the Noahic Flood to account for the current amount of mammalian diversity? Surely someone, somewhere, in all of human history would have witnessed it. I mean, it happened 5,247 times in 4,000 years, and that’s completely ignoring the ridiculous amount of diversity found in birds, arthropods, amphibians, and reptiles. If that many new mammal species have arisen within the time span of recorded history, there would be a record of it.

So here’s the bottom line: If the created kind corresponds to anything lower than a family, there is simply no way representatives could of each kind could fit onto one boat. If the created kind corresponds to the taxonomic family or anything higher, there is simply no way to account for the current biodiversity we see in the natural world. There is no way the Genesis account of the Noahic Flood could have literally happened.

Source
 

Mononoke

Member
Sep 12, 2009
443
7
0
Is Evolution Science?

Is Evolution Science?

Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.
The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

  • Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
  • Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
  • There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
  • Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
  • Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed. This lack of mixing stongly implies that the rockbeds have different ages.
  • Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
  • The theory of Common Descent predicts that the species alive today can be organized into one single family tree, where each species is a descendant of a parent species. (And therefore, there should be a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness.) For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
    Dogs are another example. There should be species we would group with dogs, and there are - such as wolves and coyotes. So we are not surprised when dogs and foxes turn out to share some peculiar features of the middle ear. This group - the Family Canidae - can be grouped with the bears, raccoons and weasels, because their ears have some similarities to those of dogs. All of these have carnassial teeth, but so do cats, civets and seals - so we group the entire lot as being Order Carnivora. Carnivores all have 3 middle ear bones, mammary glands, placental development, hair, a diaphragm, a four-chambered heart, and a larynx. But they share those features with humans, bats, elephants and whales. So we group that entire lot as being Class Mammalia. But mammals have amniote eggs, and so do birds, lizards, snakes and turtles. And amniote animals share with frogs and salamanders the property of having four legs - they're tetrapods. Tetrapods and fish both have backbones - they're vertebrates. Vertebrates and starfish are both deuterostomes because they share the way their embryos develop a mouth. Deuterostomes are left-right symmetric, so we group them and insects and snails as bilateral. The bilaterals, the jellyfish and sponges are all animals. Animals, fungi, rose bushes and amoebas all have a nucleus inside each cell - they're eukaryotes. Eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea share the DNA mechanism, lipid-based cell membranes, and hundreds of other biochemical details.
    (And that's the short version of the story! For all the fancy Latin names, see the Tree of Life.)
    Notice that the dog-to-bacteria story has some apparent irregularities. For example, I said that elephants and whales are mammals, and that mammals have hair. It is not obvious, but elephants and whales do have a small amount of hair. Also, scientists group whales and snakes as tetrapods. So where are their four legs? From the theory of Common Descent, we see that they must be descended from four-legged creatures, and that they have lost their legs. (Loss is an easy mutation - as witness hairless dogs.) So, we predict that there should be fossils of whales with legs, and snakes with legs. These fossils have been found. Similarly, starfish outwardly have radial symmetry, but we classified them as bilateral. So Common Descent predicts that their group (echinoderms) had bilateral ancestors, and such a fossil has been found.
  • Another prediction from Common Descent is that there will be species that are highly similar, so that they are fairly obviously a group. And, when we talk about groups of groups, we will see one notch less similarity. For example, we group the tree species that give oranges, mandarins, lemons, limes, tangelos, lemonades (a rounded fruit that's sweet like lemonade) and grapefruits. They're called citrus trees. We also group the stone fruit trees - those are the ones with peaches, apricots, plums, nectarines, peachcots (a cross between peaches and apricots) or peacherines. Gardeners can graft a branch from an orange tree onto a lemon tree, and get it to grow, so that they then have a tree that grows both oranges and lemons. Gardeners can mix any two citrus trees, and they can mix apple varieties, or pear varieties. But apples and peaches don't mix.
  • Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve more than once. They will evolve in several species, quite independently of each other (because there has been time for that to happen). And, independent lines of evolution will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
  • In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was discovered, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
  • It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
  • From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
  • In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
  • Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
  • In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
    "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
    Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
    This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
  • Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm. The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
  • A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
  • The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence. This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
  • An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
    Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. (Skills such as the ability to do without fresh water.) Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
    It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.
The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.

Source