Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

Evolution is a great topic. Ask him to provide any evidence for evolution. There is none - so it takes faith to believe it. The look on atheists faces that I have said that to is priceless because they are so convinced they need proof when evolution doesn’t have any.
When I was an atheist and evolutionist and first found out there is no proof for evolution it totally shook me and lead me to consider God.

"Proof" is not a scientific concept. Neither is faith.

What we do have is absolutely enormous amount of scientific evidence to support the idea that life on earth changes over time. From the ancient fossil record to modern genome sequencing. And the theory of evolution by natural selection remains the best scientific explanation for how biological change happens. More recent discoveries in molecular genetics such as the process and frequency of gene mutations and the ability to sequence entire genomes have only strengthened Darwin's theories. Despite the fact that the science of modern genetics did not yet exist during his time.

Nevertheless, the best way to make your name in science is to disrupt and overturn existing theories and propose new ones. Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier, Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein, Plank, Wegener, etc. They are all famous for upsetting existing theories and taking science in new directions. So any scientist who managed to invalidate the theory of evolution by natural selection and come up with something new that better explains the evidence? He or she would instantly be world famous.

[Ken]

Evolution is a great topic. Ask him to provide any evidence for evolution. There is none - so it takes faith to believe it. The look on atheists faces that I have said that to is priceless because they are so convinced they need proof when evolution doesn’t have any.
When I was an atheist and evolutionist and first found out there is no proof for evolution it totally shook me and lead me to consider God.

"Proof" is not a scientific concept. Neither is faith.

What we do have is absolutely enormous amount of scientific evidence to support the idea that life on earth changes over time. From the ancient fossil record to modern genome sequencing. And the theory of evolution by natural selection remains the best scientific explanation for how biological change happens. More recent discoveries in molecular genetics such as the process and frequency of gene mutations and the ability to sequence entire genomes have only strengthened Darwin's theories. Despite the fact that the science of modern genetics did not yet exist during his time.

Nevertheless, the best way to make your name in science is to disrupt and overturn existing theories and propose new ones. Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier, Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein, Plank, Wegener, etc. They are all famous for upsetting existing theories and taking science in new directions. So any scientist who managed to invalidate the theory of evolution by natural selection and come up with something new that better explains the evidence? He or she would instantly be world famous.

May I suggest Ken's post be moved to a different thread? I want to gather input on how to relate to atheists, not enter a creation vs evolution debate.

NedFlanders is the one here who suggests that attacking evolution is a great way to relate to and evangelize atheists.

I am suggesting the opposite. Attacking basic science is probably the least fruitful strategy imaginable for evangelizing to seemingly intelligent secular people. Especially if you get fundamental principles of science wrong.

[NedFlanders]

Touché…

No attacking necessary.

It’s simple when someone demands proof of your beliefs or they won’t believe, then the intent I share is helping them look in the mirror. Personally for me, when I actually got serious into looking for any proof for evolution as an atheist and found I was lied to because there is zero scientific evidence for evolution it was instrumental for me finding God. So I get excited if someone is dogmatic about evolution - I see myself and therefore have hope for them.

[Ken]

Touché…

No attacking necessary.

It’s simple when someone demands proof of your beliefs or they won’t believe, then the intent I share is helping them look in the mirror. Personally for me, when I actually got serious into looking for any proof for evolution as an atheist and found I was lied to because there is zero scientific evidence for evolution it was instrumental for me finding God. So I get excited if someone is dogmatic about evolution - I see myself and therefore have hope for them.

I'm not dogmatic about evolution. It is just one unit out of about 20 that I teach in regular biology classes along with all the other topics: Ecology, biochemistry, cell biology, photosynthesis, respiration, cellular reproduction, mendelian genetics, molecular genetics, history of life on earth, biological classification, etc.

But to say that there is zero scientific evidence for evolution is beyond absurd. There are vast amounts of evidence all around us. Evolution simply means change. And there is endless amounts of evidence that life on earth is constantly changing. The environment and habitats on earth are constantly changing. And plant, animal, protist, fungi, and bacterial species are constantly changing along with them. We cycle from ice ages to warm periods and have experienced mass extinction events in the past. Yet life continues to survive, thrive, and yes, evolve.

People understood that we lived in a changing world long before Darwin. All he really did was propose the mechanism driving this change and titled it the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin as a naturalist focused primarily on observations and the fossil record. Since then we have acquired vast amounts of evidence in other areas of science such as molecular genetics that did not exist in Darwin's day. But that continue to confirm Darwin's basic observations about the mechanisms of change on earth.

Theories in science aren't about facts or common sense proofs, or ironclad natural laws. They are explanations that allow us to relate and connect seemingly unconnected phenomenon. Take gravity, for example. Humans have always known about gravity since the dawn of time. It is observable. If you pick up something and drop it, it will fall. If you jump out of a tree or off a cliff you will fall. If you throw a rock upwards it will come back down. This is all common sense. But it took Newton to come up with a universal theory of gravitation that was able to connect an apple falling from a tree to the ebb and flow of the tides, the changing of the seasons, the flow of rivers, and orbits of celestial bodies. All of these seemingly unrelated observations are connected through Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation which explains that bodies with mass attract each other with a force that varies directly as the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.

Evolution is no different. People have observed change in our biosphere for centuries. We can see it happening in human time scales as well as vast periods of time in the fossil record. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection simply provided an explanation of the mechanism driving the change that we see all around us. And explains seemingly unconnected phenomena such as how disease develop resistance to drugs, why penguins have wings but cannot fly, why there are so many varieties of finches in the Galapagos, and why whales have hipbones despite lacking hind legs or feet. As science advances and new areas of study emerge such as molecular genetics and genome sequencing, they only provide more and more evidence for natural selection and more powerful explanations of how it works. And we also observe how humans can produce the same exact types of change through artificial selection (selective breeding). Which is how we now have over 450 different breeds of dogs from the Chihuahua to the St. Bernard, all descended from Pleistocene-era wolves. Or how we have hundreds of different varieties of apples and how ancient Mesoamerican peoples developed modern corn from its grass-like ancestor teosinte.

[NedFlanders]

But a dog is still a dog. People have conveniently came up with names like micro and macro evolution. Evolution, In its original sense of a cat turning into a dog is not proven in the slightest. In fact science has proven more and more the DNA resistance to changing into another animal. Adaption, yes, or what you call micro evolution, but that is within its kind. It is just all too convenient to change up the names of it all to dupe more people away from Creation and accountability to a Creator.

Show me Ken, one animal that has turned into another by observation. And then repeat it. As atheists tell me - seeing is believing!

The point isn’t about being right or proven evolution wrong or attack. The point is getting people to open their minds to something (Someone) so much bigger than human reasoning.

[Ken]

But a dog is still a dog. People have conveniently came up with names like micro and macro evolution. Evolution, In its original sense of a cat turning into a dog is not proven in the slightest. In fact science has proven more and more the DNA resistance to changing into another animal. Adaption, yes, or what you call micro evolution, but that is within its kind. It is just all too convenient to change up the names of it all to dupe more people away from Creation and accountability to a Creator.

Show me Ken, one animal that has turned into another by observation. And then repeat it. As atheists tell me - seeing is believing!

The point isn’t about being right or proven evolution wrong or attack. The point is getting people to open their minds to something (Someone) so much bigger than human reasoning.

I'm not sure why you think evolution is about cats turning into dogs. It isn't. It is, however, about certain dinosaurs evolving into birds. If you want a human timescale, how about wolves into Chihuahuas? That is one example among endless others that has happened within human time scales. Or do you think it was God and not humans who created Chihuahuas and all the other breeds of dogs?

You want an example of evolution in nature that has been observed in human time scales? How about the house sparrow? It was brought to North America from Europe in the 19th century. Since then as it has spread out across North America and has changed (evolved) to adapt to different habitats. Sparrows in northern latitudes have evolved to be larger and darker which are adaptations that increase survival in cold climates. Sparrows that have migrated to southern latitudes have become smaller and lighter in color which are adaptations favored by hot climates.

Do you deny the existence of change in the physical and geological world as well? Plate tectonics? Erosion? Volcanism? Sedimentation? Oxidation? The rock cycle? Climate cycles? Are all of those unproven myths as well and do you believe that the physical world is permanent and unchanging in the same way that you seem to believe the that the biological world is?

[Judas Maccabeus]

But a dog is still a dog. People have conveniently came up with names like micro and macro evolution. Evolution, In its original sense of a cat turning into a dog is not proven in the slightest. In fact science has proven more and more the DNA resistance to changing into another animal. Adaption, yes, or what you call micro evolution, but that is within its kind. It is just all too convenient to change up the names of it all to dupe more people away from Creation and accountability to a Creator.

Show me Ken, one animal that has turned into another by observation. And then repeat it. As atheists tell me - seeing is believing!

The point isn’t about being right or proven evolution wrong or attack. The point is getting people to open their minds to something (Someone) so much bigger than human reasoning.

The problem that evolutionary biology has is that gradualism and the mutations it depends on has never been shown to result in speciation. Too many different changes would have to have occurred at the same time. The systems are just far too complex. Most mutations are harmful to the organism that they occur within, at least for multicellular life. Your sparrow is still a sparrow, and likely can read.y inbreed with the other population. We have seen dogs change into everything from a corgi to a Great Dane. All are still the same species, and can Inbreed.

[Ken]

But a dog is still a dog. People have conveniently came up with names like micro and macro evolution. Evolution, In its original sense of a cat turning into a dog is not proven in the slightest. In fact science has proven more and more the DNA resistance to changing into another animal. Adaption, yes, or what you call micro evolution, but that is within its kind. It is just all too convenient to change up the names of it all to dupe more people away from Creation and accountability to a Creator.

Show me Ken, one animal that has turned into another by observation. And then repeat it. As atheists tell me - seeing is believing!

The point isn’t about being right or proven evolution wrong or attack. The point is getting people to open their minds to something (Someone) so much bigger than human reasoning.

The problem that evolutionary biology has is that gradualism and the mutations it depends on has never been shown to result in speciation. Too many different changes would have to have occurred at the same time. The systems are just far too complex. Most mutations are harmful to the organism that they occur within, at least for multicellular life.

Of course it has. Speciation is all around us. The evidence is overwhelming. The most common mechanism is geographic isolation. When two populations are separated geographically and the adaptive pressures push them in different directions the gene pools diverge. Scientists and HS biology students measure this using the Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium equation. And yes, we have directly observed how geographic isolation has resulted in speciation within human timescales. For example, a wildflower known as goatsbeards was introduced from Europe into the US in the early 1900s and has since evolved into three separate species as it has expanded across North America. Three different varieties have evolved in North America that are incapable of reproducing with each other, which is the classic definition of a species.

[Judas Maccabeus]

But a dog is still a dog. People have conveniently came up with names like micro and macro evolution. Evolution, In its original sense of a cat turning into a dog is not proven in the slightest. In fact science has proven more and more the DNA resistance to changing into another animal. Adaption, yes, or what you call micro evolution, but that is within its kind. It is just all too convenient to change up the names of it all to dupe more people away from Creation and accountability to a Creator.

Show me Ken, one animal that has turned into another by observation. And then repeat it. As atheists tell me - seeing is believing!

The point isn’t about being right or proven evolution wrong or attack. The point is getting people to open their minds to something (Someone) so much bigger than human reasoning.

The problem that evolutionary biology has is that gradualism and the mutations it depends on has never been shown to result in speciation. Too many different changes would have to have occurred at the same time. The systems are just far too complex. Most mutations are harmful to the organism that they occur within, at least for multicellular life.

Of course it has. Speciation is all around us. The evidence is overwhelming. The most common mechanism is geographic isolation. When two populations are separated geographically and the adaptive pressures push them in different directions the gene pools diverge. Scientists and HS biology students measure this using the Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium equation. And yes, we have directly observed how geographic isolation has resulted in speciation within human timescales. For example, a wildflower known as goatsbeards was introduced from Europe into the US in the early 1900s and has since evolved into three separate species as it has expanded across North America. Three different varieties have evolved in North America that are incapable of reproducing with each other, which is the classic definition of a species.

But, alas, it is still a flower. Has the chromosome number/morphology changed? Attempted to find out the cause? You do know that a Chihuahua cannot breed with a Great Dane. Some tomato will not hybridize . Are you suggesting they are now separate species?

[Josh]

Evolution is a matter of blind faith (nobody has ever observed macro evolution, for instance).