Question:
Creationists, what arguments do you have with evolution?
Need to Know
2009-05-11 15:43:49 UTC
(Warning: reading ahead)

Nothing in the real world can be proven with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

-All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.

-Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

-Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

-Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

-The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.

-Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

-Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

-Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.

-The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.

-Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

-The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.

-When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

-The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.

-Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.

-Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

-Speciation has been observed.

-The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

-Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

--Source: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html


Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

-Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

-Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patien
22 answers:
2009-05-11 15:56:45 UTC
Nice copy & paste job from r_u_really_that_scared. Just for her:



1) Science has no problem with the Cambrian Explosion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html



2) Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things, and we've learned a lot over the last 2500 years. Science is based on results of the scientific method, not authority figures. Wake up and get out of the middle ages.



3) Evolution does NOT say that modern apes will evolve into homo sapiens. Even the creationist site you link advises creationists not to use that argument because they know it's bogus. Evolution shows that we have a common ancestor.



As for where one species "becomes" another, this is like asking who had the first conversation in modern English. Populations evolve, not just individual organisms. There is no distinct line between species crossing. But when it's gotten to the point where the end of one lineage can no longer reproduce with another, we call that a different species.



4) There's more than one dating method:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html



Rachael Yay's post is downright hilarious. I suppose all of those geologists have just been making pure "guesses" over the years! I hope for her sake there are no actual geologists or paleontologists reading this.



SPL started to sound believable until he mentioned "14 feet and 20 feet tall skeletons". I think even Snopes has a page for that one.
SPL Texas
2009-05-11 23:01:12 UTC
I am a microbiologist - I have a first author publication in an international journal. I also has a supernatural encounter with Jesus so I see things in a non biased manner and I see not conflict.



You see science operates with certain assumptions, presumtions derived from man made theories. The genesis and reasoning in the development of those theories dictates the often the conclusion down the road.



Let me give you an example - i discovered some genes linked in Humans that were linked in Fish etc. I really did (smile). Anyways, the natural conclusion from the team was that it was more evidence for evolution the way they believe it - (I believe in some concepts of evolution but none of it run contrary to the God the creator and Jesus the saviour) - Ok - follow me - I was also a molecular biologist so i understood protein resulting from genes etc.



Anyways what is often overlooked is that function requires protein which requires genes - do you follow. Now, let say we need to put two organisms in the same envrionment as a creator - obviously the function of using a resource their will need some type of protein which will need some type of genes etc. DO you follow?



So proof can often be deceptive - even as a scientist.



I suggest you ask my friends at spiritpoweredliving.org some email questions - they will gladly reply - one of the founders was a wel published scientist and businessperson.



Natural selection does occur but you don't have new "Species come out from it"



A more interesting geological finding are findings of 14 feet and 20 feet tall skeletons - which goes inline with biblical records of giants living on the land in those days of Noah etc.



Anyways, Jesus is real and I received his Holy Spirit and have experienced great love and supernatural maneifestations in my life etc - Read Mark 16 - those things happened and are happening to me still after many hears.



God takes the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.



Love you, your brother
Army ROTC Cadet Beckman
2009-05-11 22:57:08 UTC
You seen confident, my friend. I have spent many years researching these things and I found all of those to be false, based on my opinion. But I seek not debate in such an unnecessary way, I am here to spread the word of the glorious works of our creator. Besides, I once had no evidence or science to defend my belief in the Lord. I once had nothing but something they call faith, my friend. Even faith alone was enough for me. There's simply a special something in a TRUE follower of christ that just makes a christian chuckle when I see someone trying to change my mind about my beliefs. It's like someone trying to tell you that your family tree never had any hair. It's simply funny, and somehow, deniable.
Joshua
2009-05-11 23:04:30 UTC
I don't really have any arguments that kill either. I still have yet to see the mechanism that causes adaptation, I also haven't witnessed it in my lifetime in any species but given how long it theoretically takes that's kind of a tall order.



I could refer you to a great book, The Language of God.



It was written by one of the guys who headed the Human Genome Project, who prescribes to the evolutionist theory and is a christian.



I guess I don't understand this battle between science and religion and that's why I gravitated towards this book, especially when you look back at some of Darwin's personal writings and find out he was in fact a christian. Sure he waivered in his faith from time to time as most of us do, but in the end he died a believer.
Alhazred
2009-05-11 23:03:00 UTC
I believe in evolution just that man is not a product of it. If man was a product of evolution then the world would be more like the video game Oblivion or other fantasy games that have more then one intelligent race. There should be mer-people or beast-people which developed in different areas rather then just us ape-people.
2009-05-11 22:58:24 UTC
First of all Evolution is just stupid. How can people believe in something that's just so retarded? If the Big Bang Theory actually happened then where did space come from? Where did the meteors come from? It makes no sense. If an atheist read the books by Lee Strobel, then how could you believe in Evolution? The book series he wrote is in a non-creationist point of view and explains how creationism and Science go together. Another good movie is Expelled.
badbender001
2009-05-11 22:50:53 UTC
When science can create life from a non-living thing I will fully accept the idea of evolution.



The theory of spontaneous generation was disproved a century ago. Living things do not come from non-living things.



Evolution does not disprove creation, it just shows things changed afterwards.



Can ANY EVOLITIONIST tell us how the FIRST life form began on Earth? The first omeba, bacteria the very first life form period. If they can then I will support evolution. If they can not then I will not support their theory.
2009-05-11 22:51:23 UTC
None that have not been debunked over and over.







"Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer





The dumb ones who don't even know the definition of scientific theory crack me up.
2009-05-11 22:51:32 UTC
The simple answer is the theists have no reasoned arguments against the theory of evolution but will dispute it merely because it weakens the theory of a God.
r_u_really_that_scared
2009-05-11 22:47:42 UTC
For four main reasons,



1) The Cambrian Explosion renders the idea ludicrous, there can't possibly be that many transitional forms to that few precedent forms, not to mention that the obvious answer is 'abrupt appearance'.



2) Aristotle saw those forms in his Parva Naturalia and his five major biological works and argued for homology WITHOUT descent,.



3) And the great logic error...Take an ape and a man and a whole series of putative transitional types. Now going forward from ape to man where does it change ? And more importantly, How can you tell having only the physical remains ? Same with going backward from man to ape.



4) The basic error is geological. All the dating and serialization upon which the transition is based are geological and the very foundation of stratigraphy has been questioned over the last 20 years. I would say you CAN'T use the geological column any more.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i...

OR

In opposition to the existing notion of sediment deposition that is generally taught, Dr. Berthault revealed that his empirical experimental results clearly show that parts of undisturbed lower strata are actually younger than parts of higher strata laid down in a continuous flow.



This means that fossils can not be dated by the strata that they are found in, nor the rocks dated by the type of fossils found in them and makes nonsense of the geologic column as it is currently taught.



Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d'Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.
END TIMES
2009-05-11 22:49:14 UTC
For thousands of year the world knew nothing about evolution and then in the later years a man came about teaching evolution without evidence.
?
2009-05-11 22:53:16 UTC
I'm right with you. People just love to bury their heads in the sand so they won't have to admit they're wrong.
Lisette
2009-05-11 22:53:17 UTC
No argument. God is both outside nature and outside of time. The idea that God would create the mechanism of evolution makes sense to me. Thanks for the info.
?
2009-05-11 22:50:22 UTC
Why can't Dogs breed with Horses? Because they are different "kinds"



God created kinds and the kinds have changed with inter-kind breeding
?
2009-05-11 23:10:15 UTC
Lets see

If God made life

,And I think HE did,

then wouldn't HE make them similar



Hope that helped
2009-05-11 22:48:01 UTC
I'm an atheist and I fully back evolution, but damn, you gotta shorten the argument for them. I'm not even willing to read that much, what makes you think they are?
2009-05-11 22:50:20 UTC
mainly drawing conclusions that one species evolved from another .. maybe some did but im not ready to trace it back to explain origin theres just no evidence that points to that in my opinion .. it can be useful to understand certain things but trying to place one theory as THE fact isnt even scientific ..
2009-05-11 22:53:14 UTC
"No argument. God created everything. It's that simple"



TRANSLATION: "No fair! You used big words and I have no idea what you mean. Therefore, science is no good, so godmustadidit"
2009-05-11 22:50:22 UTC
I just don't see how a scientist can look at a skull and say, oh it is 25 million years old.



How the hell did he figure that out?

There is no way you can tell how old the skull is.



It is just an educational guess.



A GUESS.



Evolution is nothing but THEORY...



Since you don't want me to believe in GOD, then I won't believe in Evolution either.

GOT THAT!!!!!!!!!??
Sophie
2009-05-11 22:48:16 UTC
I believe in evolution being the answer to how and not the answer to why. If God created science why separate the two?
A1
2009-05-11 22:48:33 UTC
This question is always asked and I don't care. Let me believe what I believe. This is a free country.
2009-05-11 22:47:33 UTC
No argument. God created everything. It's that simple.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...