The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

[Valjean]

Again, if you can't prove God or His word is wrong I won't listen to your speculations and opinions.

I know you don't like things pointed out to you, but what choice do we have when you continually ignore us and regurgitate the same erroneous arguments over and over?
Do you believe the Earth's round? If so, why? It hasn't been proven -- nothing in science is proven.
Why do we have to prove God doesn't exist? It's your proposal. It's your burden of proof. So where's your proof?
It doesn't even matter whether there's any evidence for evolution. Disproving evolution is not evidence of magic poofing. It's a false dichotomy.

You have everything you need to prove macroevolution happened if it did, yet you can't prove it. You should be able to prove it to at least 99.9% accuracy given all the DNA evidence out there. But you can't. Not that you won't but you can't.

Enough with the "prove," already!
If (when) we provide you with 99% 'proof', I daresay It'll have no more effect than rain on a duck's back.
You are truly the Teflon poster. Facts just will not stick.

Not interested in that spiel. The objections of all scientists to creation are irrelevant to me in the same way that you reject creation.

So where's your 'proof' of creation, or any hard evidence at all?

 

[Valjean]

Hmm... I guess ICR doesn't exist?

The ICR has yet to produce any real evidence for creationism. It's very good at scriptural sleight-of-hand, but fails to validate the scriptures it cites. Moreover, it relies heavily on uninformed criticism of science and false dichotomy.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Wrong!

The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France.

Have you looked at the evidence in the paper, the data, or just bought into the politicized title? Have you looked at the pictures? These are feathers, "primative" or not, and do not resemble anything like what you would expect of a transitionary form between a scale and a feather. Indeed, the article is forced (by burden of honesty) to refer to them as "feathers," not some odd scale-feather transition. Just look at the graphics.

 

[Altfish]

Have you looked at the evidence in the paper, the data, or just bought into the politicized title? Have you looked at the pictures? These are feathers, "primative" or not, and do not resemble anything like what you would expect of a transitionary form between a scale and a feather. Indeed, the article is forced (by burden of honesty) to refer to them as "feathers," not some odd scale-feather transition. Just look at the graphics.

Then, since you are so sure it is rubbish perhaps you should submit a rebuttal.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Then, since you are so sure it is rubbish perhaps you should submit a rebuttal.

No judgement of rubbish. No need for rebuttal. Look at the actual evidence in the paper (not the sound bite, pop-sci, culturally popular conclusions) and follow the evidence where it really leads.

 

[Altfish]

No judgement of rubbish. No need for rebuttal. Look at the actual evidence in the paper (not the sound bite, pop-sci, culturally popular conclusions) and follow the evidence where it really leads.

I did, it is good evidence of the evolution of feathers.

 

[DavidFirth]

That is as silly as trying to maintain that a short stroll and a long hike are not both the result of walking.

Please do elaborate.

 

[DavidFirth]

Wrong!

The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France.

Too many "might have's" and maybe's in that link. It's obvious the author is just guessing to me. Do you have a better link than that or are we supposed to believe his guessing games?

 

[DavidFirth]

Well, it certainly doesn't count.

.

Your opinion isn't at least slightly biased, is it?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Why would natural selection require any kind of intelligence? It merely means that those who are born with advantages over others have a better chance at surviving and passing on their DNA.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. How do you explain the numerous links found between modern man and our common ancestor with apes?

 

[leibowde84]

Too many "might have's" and maybe's in that link. It's obvious the author is just guessing to me. Do you have a better link than that or are we supposed to believe his guessing games?

Why do you think he is guessing?

 

[DavidFirth]

Why do you think he is guessing?

"Might have been derived" means he's guessing. He is saying that it is probable that they were, but not necessarily. That means he is guessing.

 

[DavidFirth]

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. How do you explain the numerous links found between modern man and our common ancestor with apes?
View attachment 18469

Can you prove these links? A picture doesn't prove anything. A bunch of words don't prove anything. Where's the DNA evidence that is absolute and unarguable?

 

[leibowde84]

"Might have been derived" means he's guessing. He is saying that it is probable that they were, but not necessarily. That means he is guessing.

If something is probable, how is that a mere guess? Isn't it at least an educated guess?

 

[DavidFirth]

What would constitute a proof of macroevolution in your mind?

You would have to show me exactly how it happened, explaining all of the changes in the DNA with exactly how they happened and why they happened. I would need to know exactly what changed, when it changed, why it changed and how it changed.

I would need to see the DNA changing. If it happens over millions of years then it happens slowly enough to observe the DNA change begin to happen and during the process of it actually happening.

Similarity of DNA isn't proof of macroevolution. Chimps' DNA is 97% similar to ours and they are nothing like us. That isn't proof that we came from the same creature, just the fact that the DNA is similar.

 

[DavidFirth]

If something is probable, how is that a mere guess? Isn't it at least an educated guess?

I wouldn't call it that. "Educated" seems to indicate that one person is more qualified to make a guess than another person. It's still just a guess nevertheless.

And who is saying it's probable or it isn't? It's like asking what are the odds on the Yankees' game tonight. Who cares?

 

[leibowde84]

Can you prove these links? A picture doesn't prove anything. A bunch of words don't prove anything. Where's the DNA evidence that is absolute and unarguable?

There is a plethora of DNA evidence proving our relationship with our common ancestors with modern day apes.

(from Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program)
No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals – that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so ‘out there’ for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 – that human evolution began in Africa.

The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too. Even though Europe and Asia were scoured for early human fossils long before Africa was even thought of, ongoing fossil discoveries confirm that the first 4 million years or so of human evolutionary history took place exclusively on the African continent. It is there that the search continues for fossils at or near the branching point of the chimpanzee and human lineages from our last common ancestor.

 

[DavidFirth]

I know you don't like things pointed out to you, but what choice do we have when you continually ignore us and regurgitate the same erroneous arguments over and over?
Do you believe the Earth's round? If so, why? It hasn't been proven -- nothing in science is proven.
Why do we have to prove God doesn't exist? It's your proposal. It's your burden of proof. So where's your proof?
It doesn't even matter whether there's any evidence for evolution. Disproving evolution is not evidence of magic poofing. It's a false dichotomy.

Enough with the "prove," already!
If (when) we provide you with 99% 'proof', I daresay It'll have no more effect than rain on a duck's back.
You are truly the Teflon poster. Facts just will not stick.
So where's your 'proof' of creation, or any hard evidence at all?

You have the DNA, and DNA don't lie. Show me exactly how it happened. Show me why. Show me and stop speculating and I will listen to you.

But you can't show me. So I stand by the word of God that He created Man in his image. He didn't create an ape-like creature that later turned into a man, He created an actual man.

 

[DavidFirth]

There is a plethora of DNA evidence proving our relationship with our common ancestors with modern day apes.

(from Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program)
No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals – that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so ‘out there’ for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 – that human evolution began in Africa.

The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too. Even though Europe and Asia were scoured for early human fossils long before Africa was even thought of, ongoing fossil discoveries confirm that the first 4 million years or so of human evolutionary history took place exclusively on the African continent. It is there that the search continues for fossils at or near the branching point of the chimpanzee and human lineages from our last common ancestor.

Again, you're just showing me similarities of the DNA. You haven't explained the differences; you haven't explained and shown me how, why and when the DNA changed. Again, you merely assume the changes happened without any concrete proof that they did. You're speculating, guessing.