[chikis]

This is a question I met in the course of preparing for my future exam:
The evidence for evolution can be obtained from the following except A. fossil B. anatomy C. history D. embryology E. taxonomy
From the option A-E, I know that fossil record, comparative anatomy and embryology are good evidence for evolution. Am stuck between taxonomy and history.
Taxonomy has to do with the scientific process of classifying things especially animals and plants (arranging them into group). I don’t know how that (taxonomy) will be handy in this.
History is worth considering because it has to do with a record of past events. If you think about the history of man right from the homohablis stage through homoerectus down to the present homosapiens stage and including the stone age (the dark ages), you may see how handy history is to this question.
With the above reasons, I take it that taxonomy has no help to this question. Therefore option E. should be the most suitable answer since the question requires from the multiple choices one that is not an evidence of evolution.
Now to you viewing this thread, I want you to look at this question critically and tell me your mind. What do you think? Is E truely the correct answer for the question as I thought or absolutely wrong? You can make citation if necessary and give useful link or links as well.

[JackBean]

IMO taxonomy is (or at least should be) result of evolution. But I’m not sure, how much could history help…

[chikis]

You mean taxonomy is an evidence of evolution? If so how? I don’t understand how the classification of living things into groups can be an evidence of evolution.

[JackBean]

No, I mean, that the consequence is reverse, evolution should cause taxonomy, not vice versa.

[chikis]

In other words, what you meant is this:
If not for the constant evolution of living organisms from a common ancestor into more diverse organisms, they would not have been any such need to classify them into group for easy study of each?

[JorgeLobo]

History as documented record would be of limited scientiifc value – it addresses a relatively brief period and consists of hearsay withput scientific precision or control. Think anthropology speaks more to the point offered for "history of man".

Of the options offered, fossil record would be the most obvious.

[chikis]

In that case the evidence for evolution can be obtain from fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology and taxonomy except history. Therefore the answer is C.
But how can evidence of evolution be obtained from taxonomy?

[JorgeLobo]

Caution re. embryology. They might be trying to catch you up on the old ontogeny-recapitulates-phylogeny concept.

[chikis]

I don’t understand what you meant by that.

[JorgeLobo]

The generally discounted concept that development of the embryo (esp. human) progresses through stages consistent with evolution theory. See: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e … geny.shtml

[Darby]

Embryology’s contribution to evolutionary theory goes way beyond Haeckel’s odd ideas. Just think of the impact of comparing HOX genes…

[chikis]

Can we just discredit history as evidence of evolution simply because it has no scientific backing?

[Author]

Posts