Evidence for Evolution

[AndersonD]

Also in terms of mass, the earth is a closed system, as is the universe.

May I ask Ken where you went to college?

[Ken]

1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Schwartz is out of date. There are examples. I cited some upstream. But "empirical proof" also isn't any sort of scientific standard whatsoever. There is no empirical proof that gravity waves exist. We have never seen them. Yet we accept the existence of gravity due to endless amounts of observational evidence of its effects. There is also no empirical evidence that the sun exists. We can see its effects in terms of solar radiation and the effects of the sun's gravity on the orbit of the earth and other planets. But no one has actually gone there and touched the sun to see if it is real. Evolution is no different. We have endless amounts of observational evidence of the effects of evolutionary change. And new evidence, such as genome sequencing, confirms older evidence such as comparative anatomy and fossil records.

Nothing in the real world can be proven with absolute certainty. And scientific theories are not about absolute proof. They are about constructing explanations for observable facts and phenomenon. The evidence for evolution is extensive across many fields of science and it is consistent. And each new observation tests the rest. It would be preposterous to refer to this enormous body of evidence as anything other than facts.

2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not support evolution.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant and inapplicable. It only applies to closed systems. Essentially the law states that that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

The earth is not a closed system. It is the opposite of a closed system. A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use from all sources (electrical, hydrocarbon, nuclear, etc.). So yes, if you turn off the sun and leave the earth as a cold rock in distant empty space then yes, no evolution would occur, it would be a dead frozen planet. But we don't live on that earth.

The only processes necessary for evolution (i.e. genetic change) to occur are reproduction, genetic variation, and some process of selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them.

Comparing the theory of evolution to gravity isn't a fair comparison. I can observe gravity, I cannot observe evolution, other than micro evolution. It's very shoddy science.

My cousin's boyfriend who is a physicist is a creationist and came to faith through his studies. Many of the new discoveries in physics are leaving physicists who are naturalists out in the cold.

Currently reading, "The Return of the God Hypothesis" by Stephen Meyer. A very interesting read. They are currently finding that DNA is very resistant to change which is another problem for evolutionists.

No, you are not actually observing gravity first-hand. Gravity waves are invisible and no one has ever seen them. Or even knows exactly how they work. What you are observing is the secondary effects of gravity waves on various objects that have mass. You have no empirical evidence that gravity waves exist. Yet we have tremendous amounts of science based on the observed effects of gravity and it is utterly uncontroversial.

Evolution is no different. In fact we know much more about the mechanisms behind evolution than we do for gravity. But because it tends to happen at long time scales for most organisms due to the long time spans between generations, it is not something we generally see first-hand. Especially for higher organisms. For organisms with very fast reproductive rates like viruses we see it happening fast. But we do see its effects confirmed through endless amounts of evidence and observations all around us. Just like gravity.

So if it takes perhaps several hundred to a thousand generations to observe speciation first-hand that is going to take a minimum of 25,000 years if you are going to run an experiment on slow generation species like elephants which have a 25 year generation time. But for something like bacteria or viruses that can divide in hours or minutes we can see it happen much much faster. Just like how all the different strains of COVID evolved from the original in very short order.

All of this is utterly uncontroversial and has been part of biology for a very long time. But hey, if you know better, feel free to propose an alternative theory of biological change that meets YOUR OWN criteria for empirical evidence. You will go down in scientific history of you manage to do so.

And by the way, what do you mean by the statement that "DNA is very resistant to change". There is a tremendous amount of evidence on mutation rates within and across species. For example, here's one of thousands of papers on the topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05752-y

[Ken]

Also in terms of mass, the earth is a closed system, as is the universe.

Yes, but the creationist argument about the second law of thermodynamics is not about mass, it is about energy (or entropy) And the earth is most definitely NOT a closed system when it comes to energy.

May I ask Ken where you went to college?

Undergraduate work at Goshen College and Reed College
Graduate studies at University of Washington

How about yourself?

[MaxPC]

[MaxPC]

[NedFlanders]

Schwartz is out of date. There are examples. I cited some upstream. But "empirical proof" also isn't any sort of scientific standard whatsoever. There is no empirical proof that gravity waves exist. We have never seen them. Yet we accept the existence of gravity due to endless amounts of observational evidence of its effects. There is also no empirical evidence that the sun exists. We can see its effects in terms of solar radiation and the effects of the sun's gravity on the orbit of the earth and other planets. But no one has actually gone there and touched the sun to see if it is real. Evolution is no different. We have endless amounts of observational evidence of the effects of evolutionary change. And new evidence, such as genome sequencing, confirms older evidence such as comparative anatomy and fossil records.

Nothing in the real world can be proven with absolute certainty. And scientific theories are not about absolute proof. They are about constructing explanations for observable facts and phenomenon. The evidence for evolution is extensive across many fields of science and it is consistent. And each new observation tests the rest. It would be preposterous to refer to this enormous body of evidence as anything other than facts.




The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant and inapplicable. It only applies to closed systems. Essentially the law states that that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

The earth is not a closed system. It is the opposite of a closed system. A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use from all sources (electrical, hydrocarbon, nuclear, etc.). So yes, if you turn off the sun and leave the earth as a cold rock in distant empty space then yes, no evolution would occur, it would be a dead frozen planet. But we don't live on that earth.

The only processes necessary for evolution (i.e. genetic change) to occur are reproduction, genetic variation, and some process of selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them.

Comparing the theory of evolution to gravity isn't a fair comparison. I can observe gravity, I cannot observe evolution, other than micro evolution. It's very shoddy science.

My cousin's boyfriend who is a physicist is a creationist and came to faith through his studies. Many of the new discoveries in physics are leaving physicists who are naturalists out in the cold.

Currently reading, "The Return of the God Hypothesis" by Stephen Meyer. A very interesting read. They are currently finding that DNA is very resistant to change which is another problem for evolutionists.

No, you are not actually observing gravity first-hand. Gravity waves are invisible and no one has ever seen them. Or even knows exactly how they work. What you are observing is the secondary effects of gravity waves on various objects that have mass. You have no empirical evidence that gravity waves exist. Yet we have tremendous amounts of science based on the observed effects of gravity and it is utterly uncontroversial.

Evolution is no different. In fact we know much more about the mechanisms behind evolution than we do for gravity. But because it tends to happen at long time scales for most organisms due to the long time spans between generations, it is not something we generally see first-hand. Especially for higher organisms. For organisms with very fast reproductive rates like viruses we see it happening fast. But we do see its effects confirmed through endless amounts of evidence and observations all around us. Just like gravity.

So if it takes perhaps several hundred to a thousand generations to observe speciation first-hand that is going to take a minimum of 25,000 years if you are going to run an experiment on slow generation species like elephants which have a 25 year generation time. But for something like bacteria or viruses that can divide in hours or minutes we can see it happen much much faster. Just like how all the different strains of COVID evolved from the original in very short order.

All of this is utterly uncontroversial and has been part of biology for a very long time. But hey, if you know better, feel free to propose an alternative theory of biological change that meets YOUR OWN criteria for empirical evidence. You will go down in scientific history of you manage to do so.

And by the way, what do you mean by the statement that "DNA is very resistant to change". There is a tremendous amount of evidence on mutation rates within and across species. For example, here's one of thousands of papers on the topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05752-y

Stating evidence is dishonest. The article itself at least calls it an hypotheses.

From your article:

However, a lack of accurate and standardized GMR estimation has so far precluded testing current hypotheses. of GMR evolution.

estimates of GMRs per generation

mutation rates inferred

GMR estimates that vary by a factor of two

We first estimated the per generation GMR

They started first with estimation?

leads to the expectation of a male mutation

Funny how people can form a conclusion first and then use estimations to find an equation to fit their conclusion…

Ken, your proof of evolution is laughable and the article you linked should have a scientist as you call them(a person who questions) very much doubting GMR evolution that leads dinosaurs to turn into birds.

[Josh]

A tornado sweeping through a junkyard won’t produce a 747, and random mutations won’t make a lizard sprout wings and start singing like a songbird.

[Ken]

Comparing the theory of evolution to gravity isn't a fair comparison. I can observe gravity, I cannot observe evolution, other than micro evolution. It's very shoddy science.

My cousin's boyfriend who is a physicist is a creationist and came to faith through his studies. Many of the new discoveries in physics are leaving physicists who are naturalists out in the cold.

Currently reading, "The Return of the God Hypothesis" by Stephen Meyer. A very interesting read. They are currently finding that DNA is very resistant to change which is another problem for evolutionists.

No, you are not actually observing gravity first-hand. Gravity waves are invisible and no one has ever seen them. Or even knows exactly how they work. What you are observing is the secondary effects of gravity waves on various objects that have mass. You have no empirical evidence that gravity waves exist. Yet we have tremendous amounts of science based on the observed effects of gravity and it is utterly uncontroversial.

Evolution is no different. In fact we know much more about the mechanisms behind evolution than we do for gravity. But because it tends to happen at long time scales for most organisms due to the long time spans between generations, it is not something we generally see first-hand. Especially for higher organisms. For organisms with very fast reproductive rates like viruses we see it happening fast. But we do see its effects confirmed through endless amounts of evidence and observations all around us. Just like gravity.

So if it takes perhaps several hundred to a thousand generations to observe speciation first-hand that is going to take a minimum of 25,000 years if you are going to run an experiment on slow generation species like elephants which have a 25 year generation time. But for something like bacteria or viruses that can divide in hours or minutes we can see it happen much much faster. Just like how all the different strains of COVID evolved from the original in very short order.

All of this is utterly uncontroversial and has been part of biology for a very long time. But hey, if you know better, feel free to propose an alternative theory of biological change that meets YOUR OWN criteria for empirical evidence. You will go down in scientific history of you manage to do so.

And by the way, what do you mean by the statement that "DNA is very resistant to change". There is a tremendous amount of evidence on mutation rates within and across species. For example, here's one of thousands of papers on the topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05752-y

Stating evidence is dishonest. The article itself at least calls it an hypotheses.

From your article:

However, a lack of accurate and standardized GMR estimation has so far precluded testing current hypotheses. of GMR evolution.

estimates of GMRs per generation

mutation rates inferred

GMR estimates that vary by a factor of two

We first estimated the per generation GMR

They started first with estimation?

leads to the expectation of a male mutation

Funny how people can form a conclusion first and then use estimations to find an equation to fit their conclusion…

Ken, your proof of evolution is laughable and the article you linked should have a scientist as you call them(a person who questions) very much doubting GMR evolution that leads dinosaurs to turn into birds.

Yes, that's how science works. All science. You make hypotheses and test those hypotheses with evidence. And those who come after continue to examine and test evidence, seek new forms of evidence to confirm or refute existing hypotheses, and make new discoveries. That is the scientific process and why results are peer reviewed and published. So that the next scientist can come along and replicate or refute their findings and build on our body of knowlede.

Are you trying to DENY that mutations happen? Or that average mutation rates in different species CANNOT be measured using a variety of different methods?

Are you seriously going to claim that mutations do not happen? Or that mutation rates cannot be measured?

[NedFlanders]

No, you are not actually observing gravity first-hand. Gravity waves are invisible and no one has ever seen them. Or even knows exactly how they work. What you are observing is the secondary effects of gravity waves on various objects that have mass. You have no empirical evidence that gravity waves exist. Yet we have tremendous amounts of science based on the observed effects of gravity and it is utterly uncontroversial.

Evolution is no different. In fact we know much more about the mechanisms behind evolution than we do for gravity. But because it tends to happen at long time scales for most organisms due to the long time spans between generations, it is not something we generally see first-hand. Especially for higher organisms. For organisms with very fast reproductive rates like viruses we see it happening fast. But we do see its effects confirmed through endless amounts of evidence and observations all around us. Just like gravity.

So if it takes perhaps several hundred to a thousand generations to observe speciation first-hand that is going to take a minimum of 25,000 years if you are going to run an experiment on slow generation species like elephants which have a 25 year generation time. But for something like bacteria or viruses that can divide in hours or minutes we can see it happen much much faster. Just like how all the different strains of COVID evolved from the original in very short order.

All of this is utterly uncontroversial and has been part of biology for a very long time. But hey, if you know better, feel free to propose an alternative theory of biological change that meets YOUR OWN criteria for empirical evidence. You will go down in scientific history of you manage to do so.

And by the way, what do you mean by the statement that "DNA is very resistant to change". There is a tremendous amount of evidence on mutation rates within and across species. For example, here's one of thousands of papers on the topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05752-y

Stating evidence is dishonest. The article itself at least calls it an hypotheses.

From your article:

However, a lack of accurate and standardized GMR estimation has so far precluded testing current hypotheses. of GMR evolution.

estimates of GMRs per generation

mutation rates inferred

GMR estimates that vary by a factor of two

We first estimated the per generation GMR

They started first with estimation?

leads to the expectation of a male mutation

Funny how people can form a conclusion first and then use estimations to find an equation to fit their conclusion…

Ken, your proof of evolution is laughable and the article you linked should have a scientist as you call them(a person who questions) very much doubting GMR evolution that leads dinosaurs to turn into birds.

Yes, that's how science works. All science. You make hypotheses and test those hypotheses with evidence. And those who come after continue to examine and test evidence, seek new forms of evidence to confirm or refute existing hypotheses, and make new discoveries. That is the scientific process and why results are peer reviewed and published. So that the next scientist can come along and replicate or refute their findings and build on our body of knowlede.

Are you trying to DENY that mutations happen? Or that average mutation rates in different species CANNOT be measured using a variety of different methods?

Are you seriously going to claim that mutations do not happen? Or that mutation rates cannot be measured?

Never denied any of those things. But to say that because those things exist that it is evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds is utter nonsense, and no evidence of that whatsoever.

[Ken]

A tornado sweeping through a junkyard won’t produce a 747, and random mutations won’t make a lizard sprout wings and start singing like a songbird.

No, but genetic variation (provided in part by mutations), COMBINED with a process of natural selection, can and does produce dramatic change over long periods of time. The theory of evolution by natural selection contains FOUR necessary elements: (1) genetic variation, (2) inheritance, (3) a process of selection, and (4) time.

We do it ourselves all the time. For example, all of this variation was produced using the same exact process by humans, not God