The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

[Rational Agnostic]

I would like to present, as briefly as possible (which will probably turn out to be not very brief), what I see to be the most powerful and easy-to-understand pieces of evidence in favor of evolution. I am a layperson when it comes to biology, but it doesn't take much biological knowledge to see that the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming, to the point where evolution can be considered a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Many times, arguments between creationists and scientists are over minute details of the theory that do not have much meaning. However, I have never seen a creationist able to defend his/her belief in intelligent design when directly confronted with the most compelling evidence for evolution. Here are just a few of the many facts that essentially prove Darwinian evolution to be the correct explanation for the origin of species. I challenge any and all creationists to try to defend their model of intelligent design after being confronted with these facts.

1. DNA Analysis confirms Morphology with regard to the structure of phylogenetic trees: In simplest terms, analyzing the anatomical similarities between organisms leads one to believe that the organisms should be grouped together (even the Christian creationist Linnaeus recognized this). Further, these anatomical similarities suggest genetic relationship, and hence common ancestry. For instance, horses and zebras share anatomical similarities to suggest (relatively) recent common ancestry, as do humans and chimpanzees, as well as humans and bonobos. Now that we have developed the technology to directly compare DNA between species, we find that analysis of DNA confirms these similarities, and we can be assured of the genetic relationships between different animals. For instance, we now *know* that humans and chimpanzees share approximately 98% of each other's DNA, as well as humans and bonobos. Unsurprisingly, we find that animals that are more distinct anatomically turn out to be more distinct genetically as well. We can construct phylogenetic trees that map the evolutionary relationships between all organisms, and find that previous trees based upon morphology are very similar to current trees based upon DNA analysis, confirming actual genetic relationships.

2. Transitional fossils and difference in fossils in different layers of sediment--This is obviously a big one, and many creationists try to convince their followers that these fossils do not exist. However, they do exist, and they represent *tangible* evidence for evolution. They can be seen and touched. Good examples are the fossil transitions in dinosaur-to-bird evolution, as well as ape-to-human evolution. With regard to the former, we have been able to sequence fossils of dinosaurs gradually evolving feathers, wing stubs, and eventually wings, and place them in chronological order. We have done the same with ape-to-human fossils. Another point--many creationists question the dating methods with regard to fossils. Radiometric dating is reliable, but for brevity, I will not explain why this is (it can easily be googled). With regard to sediment deposition, however, it is simple to understand that the oldest layers of rock are at the bottom, and the younger layers are found on the top, as sediment continues to be deposited. No one can deny this. Repeatedly, we have confirmation that the simplest fossils are always found in the bottom layers, and the most complex fossils are always found in the upper layers of sedimentary rock, strongly indicating that the more complex fossils evolved from the simpler ancestor fossils.

3. Embryology---the development of organisms in the womb mirrors their evolutionary history, indicating that embryological developmental processes have been built upon each other. Since evolution never starts from scratch, and always builds, and improves on previous models via natural selection (among other lesser mechanisms), it makes sense. For instance, human embryos go through very stages, including those mirroring our fish-like ancestors, gradually transitioning to lizards, and eventually to more recent ancestors including apes.

4. Vestigial structures: You can easily find proof of evolution on your own body. For instance, look at your wrist. The tendon just below the wrist is a remnant from our ape-ancestors who lived in trees, and used them to aid in climbing. 10-15% of humans do not possess this tendon, but most still do, indicating our relationship with other mammals that possess it. Stronger evidence still is the existence of the phenomenon known as "goosebumps" which arise in humans when they are cold, or feeling angry, afraid, or in awe. This phenomenon is a vestigial remnant from our ancestors who had fur. These goosebumps aided them in survival, allowing them to become warmer when cold, and to appear larger when under attack (hence the reason they occur in humans as a result of fear or anger). With humans, obviously they have no effect on the appearance of physical size, but, they remain, since their is no reason for natural selection to filter them out of the gene pool. There are many, many other examples of vestiges, but I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, those our four of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution. There are certainly others, but I think that this is probably enough. Creationists: Good luck trying to refute this. Also, I didn't proofread, and wrote this in a hurry, so if there are any grammatical errors, try to cut me some slack.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Playing devil's advocate:

Is it true that evolution begins with what we can see now and then projects backward through time towards things we cannot observe? How then can you say that it starts with a hypothesis based upon observable data and repeatable experimental tests strong enough to show whether it is false or not? Obviously you weren't there.

How can you explain the complexity of the human eye?

How can you explain the complexity of simple cells? They are far more complex than any factory.

How do you explain the evolution of the woodpecker's head? How would the action of banging its beak increase its ancestor's ability to survive long enough to develop its hardened head? If a normal bird were to do that it would damage its beak or its head, and where is the advantage of its developing a hardened head before such beak tapping behavior develops?

You claim that some organs are 'Vestigial' and claim the similarity of fetuses are evidence for evolution. I say they are not evidences but conundrums that you wish to avoid. You seek to excuse yourself from believing that they are obviously evidence of a common designer.

DNA is obviously a computer program. How can you possibly deny that?

 

[Valjean]

Playing devil's advocate:

Is it true that evolution begins with what we can see now and then projects backward through time towards things we cannot observe? How then can you say that it starts with a hypothesis based upon observable data and repeatable experimental tests strong enough to show whether it is false or not? Obviously you weren't there.

Trickster's reply:
Observed speciation.

How can you explain the complexity of the human eye?

Explanations are all over YouTube.

How can you explain the complexity of simple cells? They are far more complex than any factory.

Natural selection and the other mechanisms of evolution. Lot's of natural things are complex.

How do you explain the evolution of the woodpecker's head? How would the action of banging its beak increase its ancestor's ability to survive long enough to develop its hardened head? If a normal bird were to do that it would damage its beak or its head, and where is the advantage of its developing a hardened head before such beak tapping behavior develops?

There's food under that bark and tunneling through that wood. Lots of non-woodpeckers try to access it. Woodpeckers just specialized. They're modifications came about the same way any other specialized organism's did.

You claim that some organs are 'Vestigial' and claim the similarity of fetuses are evidence for evolution. I say they are not evidences but conundrums that you wish to avoid. You seek to excuse yourself from believing that they are obviously evidence of a common designer.

What designer would incorporate a needless historical progression into an assembly process?

DNA is obviously a computer program. How can you possibly deny that?

Not all programs need be 'computer' programs.

 

[Polymath257]

Playing devil's advocate:

Is it true that evolution begins with what we can see now and then projects backward through time towards things we cannot observe? How then can you say that it starts with a hypothesis based upon observable data and repeatable experimental tests strong enough to show whether it is false or not? Obviously you weren't there.

Only a small part does it this way. Other aspects look at the fossil evidence, together with the ages of the fossils to show how species changed over time.

How can you explain the complexity of the human eye?

We have all of the stages of the eye, from eyespots with simple pigment, to indentations with some nerve endings, to deeper indentations with more specialized retina, to eyes similar to our in *living* species. The stages are not just possible, but well documented.

How can you explain the complexity of simple cells? They are far more complex than any factory.

Cells vary widely in their complexity. Bacterial cells are far, far less complex than eucaryotic cells (like those of amoeba). In fact, the cells in our bodies have organelles with their own DNA that matches that of bacteria. So a lot of the complexity of human cells is from symbiosis with simpler types of cells.

How do you explain the evolution of the woodpecker's head? How would the action of banging its beak increase its ancestor's ability to survive long enough to develop its hardened head? If a normal bird were to do that it would damage its beak or its head, and where is the advantage of its developing a hardened head before such beak tapping behavior develops?

OK, start with a 'normal bird' that eats grubs off of trees. It has to get under the bark occasionally to get to some of the grubs. Those able to get deeper into the bark survive better and are more likely to breed. Good so far? Now, in doing this, a certain amount of pecking is involved. Again, those that can peck harder will be able to probe deeper and thereby survive to breed. So, over many generations, the ability to peck harder increases. In particular, those that have additional cushioning in the brain (which some will) will be able to peck harder. This produces a feedback cycle allowing for better pecking *and* better cushioning in the brain to allow harder pecking. I think you can see how this goes.

You claim that some organs are 'Vestigial' and claim the similarity of fetuses are evidence for evolution. I say they are not evidences but conundrums that you wish to avoid. You seek to excuse yourself from believing that they are obviously evidence of a common designer.

Then why produce organs only to have them re-absorb? Why produce the organs that are useless? That implies a *bad* designer at best. But, since evolution takes what is already there and modifies it, this is *perfectly* in line with what is expected from an evolutionary viewpoint.

DNA is obviously a computer program. How can you possibly deny that?

No, it is NOT a computer program! First of all, there is no operating system, no assembly language, no CPU. Second, the specifics of operation depend strongly on the chemical aspects to translate into RNA, then to transcribe into proteins, which then fold to produce the working chemicals for life. If anything, the heart is in the ribosomes and the rRNA and tRNA that actually does the transcription into protein.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Trickster's reply:
Observed speciation.

Ok, so you claim to have observed whales evolving from cattle? Its an absurd claim. On top of that how can you blindly trust what Scientists say, since they obviously benefit financially from towing the line. What happened with Lucy and with Pildown Man -- those joyously proclaimed missing links in human evolution? These were bogus 'Missing Links' that all the Anthropologists immediately accepted as proof of evolution. Why? Where was their integrity then? What happened to Science then? Yet you claim to rely upon observed speciation as evidence. In case you hadn't noticed, owls don't turn into eagles. There are walls, cages, edges to every world.

Consider the concept of a container. Its a simple concept that extends to many things. You can sit water in a mason jar, and it may try but it will not pass through the glass. There are kinds of things which have a range of forms they can take. These are the species and the reason why dogs don't look like elephants. Its the most obvious thing, not complicated like this concept of speciation that you pursue needlessly.

Only a small part does it this way. Other aspects look at the fossil evidence, together with the ages of the fossils to show how species changed over time.

Notice what you did there. You used the term 'Show' instead of 'Reveal'. Yes its all about the show isn't it and overwhelming people with TV shows and other claims that 'Evolution did this' and 'Mother nature did that.' Is there any wonder that creationists don't want their children doused in piles of evolutionary preaching?

We have all of the stages of the eye, from eyespots with simple pigment, to indentations with some nerve endings, to deeper indentations with more specialized retina, to eyes similar to our in *living* species. The stages are not just possible, but well documented.

That does not explain why Octopi have such complex eye so similar to our own. Their eyes are clearly designed by the same mind, long before there are any television cameras of Kodak films.

Cells vary widely in their complexity. Bacterial cells are far, far less complex than eucaryotic cells (like those of amoeba). In fact, the cells in our bodies have organelles with their own DNA that matches that of bacteria. So a lot of the complexity of human cells is from symbiosis with simpler types of cells.

Bacterial cells are what I am talking about. They are supremely complex. You cannot make one from scratch. Prove me wrong. You cannot. Nor can you equal the power and elegance of the creator who designed that magnificent system. Just point me to any, absolutely any example of a system that humans can make that is 1/10 as complex and amazing. Again I ask, how can you explain the complexity of a single cell? You obviously cannot.

OK, start with a 'normal bird' that eats grubs off of trees. It has to get under the bark occasionally to get to some of the grubs. Those able to get deeper into the bark survive better and are more likely to breed. Good so far? Now, in doing this, a certain amount of pecking is involved. Again, those that can peck harder will be able to probe deeper and thereby survive to breed. So, over many generations, the ability to peck harder increases. In particular, those that have additional cushioning in the brain (which some will) will be able to peck harder. This produces a feedback cycle allowing for better pecking *and* better cushioning in the brain to allow harder pecking. I think you can see how this goes.

Fair enough. See I am perfectly reasonable. Its the leaps in your story and the generally incredible claims you make that I really object to.

Then why produce organs only to have them re-absorb? Why produce the organs that are useless? That implies a *bad* designer at best. But, since evolution takes what is already there and modifies it, this is *perfectly* in line with what is expected from an evolutionary viewpoint.

That is exactly the kind of questions that Scientists *ought* to be working on instead of trying to undermine our faith in a creator.

No, it is NOT a computer program! First of all, there is no operating system, no assembly language, no CPU. Second, the specifics of operation depend strongly on the chemical aspects to translate into RNA, then to transcribe into proteins, which then fold to produce the working chemicals for life. If anything, the heart is in the ribosomes and the rRNA and tRNA that actually does the transcription into protein.

All of which makes it the most advanced programming language we know of, probably the most advanced in existence. Statistically its stupid to think that such a program could have just formed by itself. We aren't just talking about millions of lines of code, but an entire stored network of information, but you are wrong about the operating system. Each cell functions very much like a Turing Complete computer, with RNA transcribing pieces of code from long term storage (the DNA) into the central processor (the ribosomes and golgi complex etc.). The whole thing is not only like a computer but better than any computer ever devised!

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so you claim to have observed whales evolving from cattle? Its an absurd claim. On top of that how can you blindly trust what Scientists say, since they obviously benefit financially from towing the line. What happened with Lucy and with Pildown Man -- those joyously proclaimed missing links in human evolution? These were bogus 'Missing Links' that all the Anthropologists immediately accepted as proof of evolution. Why? Where was their integrity then? What happened to Science then? Yet you claim to rely upon observed speciation as evidence. In case you hadn't noticed, owls don't turn into eagles. There are walls, cages, edges to every world.

No, nobody has observed the evolution of whales from cattle. That happened over millions of years. What has been observed is speciation: the changing from one species to another over a few generations.

Consider the concept of a container. Its a simple concept that extends to many things. You can sit water in a mason jar, and it may try but it will not pass through the glass. There are kinds of things which have a range of forms they can take. These are the species and the reason why dogs don't look like elephants. Its the most obvious thing, not complicated like this concept of speciation that you pursue needlessly.

No, species are populations of organisms that can interbreed. Your Aristotelian conceptions are false and horribly out of date.

Notice what you did there. You used the term 'Show' instead of 'Reveal'. Yes its all about the show isn't it and overwhelming people with TV shows and other claims that 'Evolution did this' and 'Mother nature did that.' Is there any wonder that creationists don't want their children doused in piles of evolutionary preaching?

Sorry, this is science and not religion. Science demonstrates while religion has revelation. You actually have to use your mind when doing science.

That does not explain why Octopi have such complex eye so similar to our own. Their eyes are clearly designed by the same mind, long before there are any television cameras of Kodak films.

Most of the stages between eyespots and compound eyes like our happened in invertebrates. What is so unusual about a different line developing? Besides, you overstate the similarity between the eyes of octopi and ours. For one thing, the retinas of the octopi are oriented the 'correct' direction, so they have no blind spots like humans do.

Bacterial cells are what I am talking about. They are supremely complex. You cannot make one from scratch. Prove me wrong. You cannot. Nor can you equal the power and elegance of the creator who designed that magnificent system. Just point me to any, absolutely any example of a system that humans can make that is 1/10 as complex and amazing. Again I ask, how can you explain the complexity of a single cell? You obviously cannot.

Yes, bacterial cells are complex. You are asking how they originally developed and nobody knows. But *evolution* is not the same as abiogenesis and the two are not directly related. Evolution is established science: biological species change over geological time. How biogenesis happened is not known.

Even if life got started from some 'Intelligent Design', that would NOT falsify evolution: that species change over time. But, the research into biogenesis has progressed quite a lot in the last 50 years. You might look into exactly what has been accomplished.

Fair enough. See I am perfectly reasonable. Its the leaps in your story and the generally incredible claims you make that I really object to.

Science will probably always have questions that nobody knows the answers to. A century ago, nobody knew how metabolism occurred, nobody knew what genes are made of, and nobody knew the chemical basis for life. Now we do. But there are still many questions. The way to answer them is NOT through prayer and meditation, but through study of the real world and using our minds to solve these problems.

That is exactly the kind of questions that Scientists *ought* to be working on instead of trying to undermine our faith in a creator.

Scientists *are* working on these and many other questions. You seem to think the is to undermine your faith. That is very, very far from the minds of most researchers. Instead, their primary goal is to understand what they see every day in their labs. Your faith does not help with that.

All of which makes it the most advanced programming language we know of, probably the most advanced in existence. Statistically its stupid to think that such a program could have just formed by itself.

On the contrary, it has *all* the characteristics of being formed from a long line of evolutionary stages: hidden genes that are turned off, pieces from one chromosome in one organism on another in a different organism, modifications of the genes in trivial between organisms, etc. It is hardly a well-structured program, but instead a type of spaghetti code that clearly uses what was there before and relies on mutation and selection to obtain the complexity.

[QUOTEWe aren't just talking about millions of lines of code, but an entire stored network of information, but you are wrong about the operating system. Each cell functions very much like a Turing Complete computer, with RNA transcribing pieces of code from long term storage (the DNA) into the central processor (the ribosomes and golgi complex etc.). The whole thing is not only like a computer but better than any computer ever devised!

And human engineer that proposed such a design would be fired.

 

[Polymath257]

All of which makes it the most advanced programming language we know of, probably the most advanced in existence. Statistically its stupid to think that such a program could have just formed by itself. We aren't just talking about millions of lines of code, but an entire stored network of information, but you are wrong about the operating system. Each cell functions very much like a Turing Complete computer, with RNA transcribing pieces of code from long term storage (the DNA) into the central processor (the ribosomes and golgi complex etc.). The whole thing is not only like a computer but better than any computer ever devised!

The ribosomes and golgi apparatus are NOT like an operating system! An OS is just another level of program that runs other programs. The ribosomes, etc are closer, in this analogy, to an interface in a production line. But unlike production lines, there two additional processes involved: mutation, where the 'code' in the DNA changes randomly; and selection, where those pieces of code that work well with others are preserved for new generations. This is where the complexity of organisms comes from: mutation (to increase diversity) and selection (to change median values in a population).

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Playing devil's advocate:

Is it true that evolution begins with what we can see now and then projects backward through time towards things we cannot observe? How then can you say that it starts with a hypothesis based upon observable data and repeatable experimental tests strong enough to show whether it is false or not? Obviously you weren't there.

How can you explain the complexity of the human eye?

How can you explain the complexity of simple cells? They are far more complex than any factory.

How do you explain the evolution of the woodpecker's head? How would the action of banging its beak increase its ancestor's ability to survive long enough to develop its hardened head? If a normal bird were to do that it would damage its beak or its head, and where is the advantage of its developing a hardened head before such beak tapping behavior develops?

You claim that some organs are 'Vestigial' and claim the similarity of fetuses are evidence for evolution. I say they are not evidences but conundrums that you wish to avoid. You seek to excuse yourself from believing that they are obviously evidence of a common designer.

DNA is obviously a computer program. How can you possibly deny that?

I think that others are doing a good job of answering your questions, so I will not take the time to address them at this point. I recommend reading the book River Out of Eden by Dr. Richard Dawkins (under 200 pages). In this book, he addresses some of the apparent difficulties with evolutionary theory, such as complexity of the eye, and explains how arguments from personal incredulity (which you seem to be employing here) are not arguments at all. I would like to kindly point out that you have not provided any objections to points 1 and 2; only to points 3 and 4. I would agree with you that if the *only* evidence for evolution that we had was from embryology and vestigial structures then we would be making a guess at best. This is why I ordered the evidence in such a way. Embryology and vestigial structures are supplementary evidence for evolution, not primary. So I would ask you directly then: When DNA analysis confirms that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos, how do you respond? And, perhaps most importantly, how do you deal with the overwhelming evidence provided by transitional fossils and the fact that fossils become increasingly complex when we get into more recent layers?

 

[idav]

Ok, so you claim to have observed whales evolving from cattle? Its an absurd claim. On top of that how can you blindly trust what Scientists say, since they obviously benefit financially from towing the line. What happened with Lucy and with Pildown Man -- those joyously proclaimed missing links in human evolution? These were bogus 'Missing Links' that all the Anthropologists immediately accepted as proof of evolution. Why? Where was their integrity then? What happened to Science then? Yet you claim to rely upon observed speciation as evidence. In case you hadn't noticed, owls don't turn into eagles. There are walls, cages, edges to every world.

Consider the concept of a container. Its a simple concept that extends to many things. You can sit water in a mason jar, and it may try but it will not pass through the glass. There are kinds of things which have a range of forms they can take. These are the species and the reason why dogs don't look like elephants. Its the most obvious thing, not complicated like this concept of speciation that you pursue needlessly.


Notice what you did there. You used the term 'Show' instead of 'Reveal'. Yes its all about the show isn't it and overwhelming people with TV shows and other claims that 'Evolution did this' and 'Mother nature did that.' Is there any wonder that creationists don't want their children doused in piles of evolutionary preaching?

That does not explain why Octopi have such complex eye so similar to our own. Their eyes are clearly designed by the same mind, long before there are any television cameras of Kodak films.

Bacterial cells are what I am talking about. They are supremely complex. You cannot make one from scratch. Prove me wrong. You cannot. Nor can you equal the power and elegance of the creator who designed that magnificent system. Just point me to any, absolutely any example of a system that humans can make that is 1/10 as complex and amazing. Again I ask, how can you explain the complexity of a single cell? You obviously cannot.

Fair enough. See I am perfectly reasonable. Its the leaps in your story and the generally incredible claims you make that I really object to.


That is exactly the kind of questions that Scientists *ought* to be working on instead of trying to undermine our faith in a creator.


All of which makes it the most advanced programming language we know of, probably the most advanced in existence. Statistically its stupid to think that such a program could have just formed by itself. We aren't just talking about millions of lines of code, but an entire stored network of information, but you are wrong about the operating system. Each cell functions very much like a Turing Complete computer, with RNA transcribing pieces of code from long term storage (the DNA) into the central processor (the ribosomes and golgi complex etc.). The whole thing is not only like a computer but better than any computer ever devised!

DNA would be the code to building the hardware and structure of the computer AI. The AI environmental logic would be Operating System, DNA would be like the binary behind the programming.

 

[osgart]

natural selection is an intelligent process, crude, but sophisticated at it's attempts at making life. morphology is intelligent.

if everything mindlessly appears, than no eye, no hand, no wing, no foot. mindlessness doesn't have a rule to make these intelligent things. evolution is the method of a crude and sophisticated intelligence.

The program of existence is trial and error of a vast intelligence that is far less than god, but perhaps eternal.

 

[Misunderstood]

I would like to present, as briefly as possible (which will probably turn out to be not very brief), what I see to be the most powerful and easy-to-understand pieces of evidence in favor of evolution. I am a layperson when it comes to biology, but it doesn't take much biological knowledge to see that the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming, to the point where evolution can be considered a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

I don't like to speak to creation and evolution most of the time. If someone is not of a spiritual mindset they deny its existence. Especially when using the Christian model. I feel that is because if they accepted creation they would need to accept God and the Christian Belief. Most people do not like that as they feel it condemns them, so the best thing is to disprove it. If you do not believe in doing good, helping each other, and loving each other, along with yourself and God; you are not going to want any part of it even if God were to stand before you. So what is the point, until you at least accept these values as the way you would want to live, even if there was no God, just because it is right, I do not see much of a point in it.

I feel this isn't a religious forum so much anyway as it is a forum to debunk most beliefs in a God or Intelligent Design. To be atheist means to not believe in a God or Gods, so I do not understand the reason for their arguments in a religious forum as most religions believe in a God. So I feel I will try to help out as best I can in case others are watching.

I will not be making much of a statement tonight as it is getting late. I work and am out of town a lot so I cannot reply consistently. But will try to stay active here as best I can.

I guess I will start with Creation and Abiogenesis. When I was young I felt evolution made since, and the main argument against it was that the odds were so great against evolution it was basically impossible. That did not cut it for me, even if the odds were very high against it means it is still possible. If the odds are 1 in (add the largest number you want), since time is timeless it is possible, you may just have to wait a while. So I doubted creation to almost losing my belief.

But as I studied science more I feel that almost every new (not all) discovery compliments the creation theory. So back to Abiogenesis, the first problem is that science has no working theory on how life began. It has theories but nothing that can produce life from something lifeless. If you were to take the life from someone in the most delicate way possible to not damage the body; once dead we cannot bring it back to life: Yes, maybe if we resuscitate them before all life is gone, we maybe able to revive them, but after a certain point it is not possible. Everything is there for life, but once it is gone we cannot bring it back. We cannot do it for even the simplest life form. With even the cell formed and all DNA and RNA we cannot get life.

Ok, maybe we have not figured it out yet and maybe someday we will, but for now we do not have much of an idea of how to create life. And getting back to time again, I feel the odds got even higher as I was thinking time was timeless when I was young. But if life was to have started on earth, we only have about 4.5 billion years for the earth to settle to a stable environment, life to get started and evolve a few times as I think there were a few extinction events where life got set back quite a bit.

That is it for tonight, I will try to get back tomorrow night.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Only a small part does it this way. Other aspects look at the fossil evidence, together with the ages of the fossils to show how species changed over time.

Fossil evidence. Consider how many creatures and people are alive today, and compare that number to the number of fossils. Its a tiny fraction. The point is that fossils are typically formed under catastrophic conditions, but C14 dating assumes steady state conditions.

In addition if the dates of bones that are older than 6,000 years do happen to be accurate they could be part of a previous creation. There are hints in the Bible that there could have been previous creations, so that is plausible.

We have all of the stages of the eye, from eyespots with simple pigment, to indentations with some nerve endings, to deeper indentations with more specialized retina, to eyes similar to our in *living* species. The stages are not just possible, but well documented.

Really? Well documented on what, Nova? You know that's a TV show. They can make anything look real. What you have is the assumption that there is a progression from one kind of eye to another, and that is part of your evolutionist model which you claim is documentation. Arguments and documentation are not the same thing.

Sorry, this is science and not religion. Science demonstrates while religion has revelation. You actually have to use your mind when doing science.

I think using your mind is just great. Minds are wonderful, intelligently designed things.

Most of the stages between eyespots and compound eyes like our happened in invertebrates. What is so unusual about a different line developing? Besides, you overstate the similarity between the eyes of octopi and ours. For one thing, the retinas of the octopi are oriented the 'correct' direction, so they have no blind spots like humans do.

Point is, Octopi have eyes a lot like ours; and I have a hard time thinking its a coincidence like you seem to think.

Yes, bacterial cells are complex. You are asking how they originally developed and nobody knows. But *evolution* is not the same as abiogenesis and the two are not directly related. Evolution is established science: biological species change over geological time. How biogenesis happened is not known.

Even if life got started from some 'Intelligent Design', that would NOT falsify evolution: that species change over time. But, the research into biogenesis has progressed quite a lot in the last 50 years. You might look into exactly what has been accomplished.

There is another word for abiogenesis that you won't like --> spontaneous generation. Basically this is evidence that Science is based upon Faith not Reason. You believe that everything 'Must have' created itself, and then you proceed from there. Without accusing you, I want to point out that God gives people over to delusions when they reject truth. Consider for a moment 2 Thessalonians 2:11 "...For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie...." Now, I am not accusing you of being deluded, but I just want to point out that your alignment against God and your gravitation towards these strange ideas like spontaneous generation seem correlated. It could be that you don't know what you are talking about. It just seems that way to me.

The ribosomes and golgi apparatus are NOT like an operating system! An OS is just another level of program that runs other programs. The ribosomes, etc are closer, in this analogy, to an interface in a production line. But unlike production lines, there two additional processes involved: mutation, where the 'code' in the DNA changes randomly; and selection, where those pieces of code that work well with others are preserved for new generations. This is where the complexity of organisms comes from: mutation (to increase diversity) and selection (to change median values in a population).

Point is, cells are like Turing complete computers and then some. Don't try to deny it. Who knows but perhaps when Alan Turing was working out how computers in the future might work, God was training his mind to prepare us to understand DNA when we became able to appreciate it.

I feel this isn't a religious forum so much anyway as it is a forum to debunk most beliefs in a God or Intelligent Design. To be atheist means to not believe in a God or Gods, so I do not understand the reason for their arguments in a religious forum as most religions believe in a God. So I feel I will try to help out as best I can in case others are watching.

I often feel its a little heavy on the side of mockers. There are Christians here and there.

 

[Polymath257]

Fossil evidence. Consider how many creatures and people are alive today, and compare that number to the number of fossils. Its a tiny fraction. The point is that fossils are typically formed under catastrophic conditions, but C14 dating assumes steady state conditions.

Yes, it is rare that anything is fossilized. So?

Why is it that creationists only know about C14 dating? Do you really think that is the *only* way we can obtain the ages of the various fossils? For that matter, do you really think it is *how* we obtain the ages of most fossils?

In addition if the dates of bones that are older than 6,000 years do happen to be accurate they could be part of a previous creation. There are hints in the Bible that there could have been previous creations, so that is plausible.

Which is what the original investigators proposed. They called it catastrophism. The problem is that to agree with the evidence, so many different 'previous creations' are required as to make the whole thing silly. Furthermore, it doesn't help to explain why the animals and plats in any 'creation' are so similar to those in the previous one.

Really? Well documented on what, Nova? You know that's a TV show. They can make anything look real. What you have is the assumption that there is a progression from one kind of eye to another, and that is part of your evolutionist model which you claim is documentation. Arguments and documentation are not the same thing.

No, not a TV show. Not NOVA. Actual, real life, living organisms alive today. For example, the nautilus, which has complex eyes but with no lens.

I think using your mind is just great. Minds are wonderful, intelligently designed things.

Point is, Octopi have eyes a lot like ours; and I have a hard time thinking its a coincidence like you seem to think.

Except, like I pointed out, the design is backwards from ours (which actually makes theirs better).

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is fun.

 

[sayak83]

Is this sufficient evidence for evolution? If not, why not?
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is it true that evolution begins with what we can see now and then projects backward through time towards things we cannot observe? How then can you say that it starts with a hypothesis based upon observable data and repeatable experimental tests strong enough to show whether it is false or not? Obviously you weren't there.

You're a police detective on the scene where a dead body with its hands tied behind its back and a bullet hole into the back of the head are found. You start with what is evident now and infer what came before. Earlier, this person had been alive and was killed. Earlier than that, this person learned to speak and walk according to family members who confirm that the victim was neither mute nor paralyzed. Before that, the victim was born, and before that, conceived. I'm sure that you agree that these inferences are valid or extremely likely to be, even though neither you, I, nor the detective were present to see any of them.

How can you explain the complexity of the human eye?

How can you explain the complexity of simple cells? They are far more complex than any factory.

How do you explain the evolution of the woodpecker's head? How would the action of banging its beak increase its ancestor's ability to survive long enough to develop its hardened head? If a normal bird were to do that it would damage its beak or its head, and where is the advantage of its developing a hardened head before such beak tapping behavior develops?

Do you consider these arguments against evolutionary theory? If so, would you make the argument explicitly? I think the argument you are implying is that if something hasn't been explained yet, it cannot and will never be explained, and therefore there must be a god.

If that's not your implied argument, would you please write out whatever is?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Bacterial cells are what I am talking about. They are supremely complex. You cannot make one from scratch. Prove me wrong. You cannot. Nor can you equal the power and elegance of the creator who designed that magnificent system. Just point me to any, absolutely any example of a system that humans can make that is 1/10 as complex and amazing. Again I ask, how can you explain the complexity of a single cell? You obviously cannot.

Complexity is not an indicator of intelligence. The ID people are correct that specified complexity such as writing, and in biological systems, irreducible complexity, if either were ever found, would be evidence of an intelligent designer.

But not mere complexity. A mountain is quite complex if by complex we mean the number of parameters that must be specified to represent it completely, such as its contour at every altitude, the location, orientation, and shape of the pieces of soil and rubble on it, the specific minerals and their precise locations in the mountain, etc..

Furthermore, if the complexity of a cell requires an explanation, the proposed explanation - in this case, a deity - should be less complicated than a cell, not more complicated by untold orders of magnitude.

Incidentally, there is now specified complexity in the genome of a microorganism genetically modified by Venter's team that inserted a so-called watermark into their creation - a sort of a signature written in the genetic code using codons as letters. There are now English words in certain bacteria written in non-coding nucleotide sequences. From https://singularityhub.com/2010/05/...acteria-has-secret-messages-coded-in-its-dna/ :

"To verify that they had synthesized a new organism and not assembled the DNA from another natural bacteria, scientists encoded a series of ‘watermarks’ into the genes of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. There are four of these hidden messages: an explanation of the coding system used, a URL address for those who crack the code to go visit, a list of 46 authors and contributors, and a series of famous quotes."​

That's specified complexity, not mere complexity, and is evidence of intelligence.

 

[Skwim]

Fossil evidence. Consider how many creatures and people are alive today, and compare that number to the number of fossils. Its a tiny fraction.
The point is that fossils are typically formed under catastrophic conditions, but C14 dating assumes steady state conditions.

No it doesn't, which is why a calibration curve and other adjustments are employed. From Wikipedia:

"Research has been ongoing since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere has been over the past fifty thousand years. [the longest the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process] The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's calendar age. Other corrections must be made to account for the proportion of 14C in different types of organisms (fractionation), and the varying levels of 14C throughout the biosphere (reservoir effects). Additional complications come from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and from the above-ground nuclear tests done in the 1950s and 1960s. Because the time it takes to convert biological materials to fossil fuels is substantially longer than the time it takes for its 14C to decay below detectable levels, fossil fuels contain almost no 14C, and as a result there was a noticeable drop in the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere beginning in the late 19th century. Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, which attained a maximum in 1963 of almost twice what it had been before the testing began."​

In addition if the dates of bones that are older than 6,000 years do happen to be accurate they could be part of a previous creation. There are hints in the Bible that there could have been previous creations, so that is plausible.

Like so much of Christianity, people interpret the Bible pretty much as needed. That's what's so neat about the book: One size fits all.

Really? Well documented on what, Nova? You know that's a TV show. They can make anything look real.

Nice cherry picking. In any case, like all such information designed for the layman the nitty-gritty of the science is deliberately left aside, just as the nitty-gritty behind the science of gravity is left out for children.

What you have is the assumption that there is a progression from one kind of eye to another, and that is part of your evolutionist model which you claim is documentation.

The assumption is claimed as documentation? Hardly. Show us an example where this happens in science.

Thank you.

Arguments and documentation are not the same thing.

Yup.

Most of the stages between eyespots and compound eyes like our happened in invertebrates. What is so unusual about a different line developing? Besides, you overstate the similarity between the eyes of octopi and ours. For one thing, the retinas of the octopi are oriented the 'correct' direction, so they have no blind spots like humans do.

Point is, Octopi have eyes a lot like ours; and I have a hard time thinking its a coincidence like you seem to think.

Where does Polymath257 indicate coincidence may be at work?

There is another word for abiogenesis that you won't like --> spontaneous generation.

Whaaa?? Obviously you've been misinformed. Here, from Wikipedia. (Note the phrase "is an obsolete body of thought.")

"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species."​

Point is, cells are like Turing complete computers and then some. Don't try to deny it. Who knows but perhaps when Alan Turing was working out how computers in the future might work, God was training his mind to prepare us to understand DNA when we became able to appreciate it.

Because what, before 1939 we were incapable of appreciating DNA?

I often feel its a little heavy on the side of mockers. There are Christians here and there.

If it wasn't for the fact that so many Christians have no compunctions about spreading their misunderstanding---often deliberate---of science among the unwary, primarily children, those of us who lend more importance to logic and reason than to faith wouldn't care a wit what Christians believe.

.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Woa what a rush! Tell you what its like playing devils advocate here. If you have ever been to the beach as a child you know the feeling. Its just like being manhandled by ocean waves! The water begins to tug at your legs and tries to drag you in....and then there is a short period of waiting before the oncoming crashing wave grabs your body, tumbles you and smears you across the rough, rocky sandy bottom. Then hopefully mamma grabs you, pants full of sand, by the ankle and pulls you out.

 

[DavidFirth]

No one is arguing against microevolution, i.e. evolution among like kinds.

Macroevolution, such as ape-like creature to man over millions of years has not been proven, only speculated.