Science Proves Evolution

[Crucifiction]

From Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True"

One of my favorite cases of embryological evidence for evolution is the furry human fetus. We are famously known as “naked apes” because, unlike other primates, we don’t have a thick coat of hair. But in fact for one brief period we do–as embryos. Around sixth months after conception, we become completely covered with a fine, downy coat of hair called lanugo. Lanugo is usually shed about a month before birth, when it’s replaced by the more sparsely distributed hair with which we’re born. … Now, there’s no need for a human embryo to have a transitory coat of hair. After all, it’s a cozy 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the womb. Lanugo can be explained only as a remnant of our primate history: fetal monkeys also develop a coat of hair at about the same stage of development. Their hair, however, doesn’t fall out, but hangs on to become the adult coat. And, like humans, fetal whales also have lanugo, a remnant of when their ancestors lived on land.

 

[p90powa]

I'd say it takes faith to believe in either evolution or creationism. And either side claims they have proof. And I doubt me arguing either way will change anyone's minds because chances are you are set in your beliefs. I am an evolutionist but I am sure along the way they will discover new evidence that will change the whole belief slightly. I am always ready to accept new evidence. A scientist that was on a video that we were watching in science class once said "I hope someone comes and tells me 100 years later 'you don't know how wrong you were'. Because it shows we are learning and gaining new knowledge every day, and that way, we are closer to understanding." I have faith in technology. Who knows what they might discover about evolution in the next hundred years.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

1. The fossil record clearly demonstrates in an unambiguous way that animals have been changing over time. It clearly shows speciation and evolution. The dating of rocks is verified by several different methods. We would have to throw out the book on nuclear physics, chemistry, and geology to deny the ages.

2. There are several types of evidence involving genetics beyond the ones I listed.
a. Humans have a different number of chromosomes than the other great apes but the evidence is very compelling that one of our chromosomes is the result of fusion of two ape chromosomes. It is beyond difficult to explain the fused chromosome without admitting that humans and apes share a common ancestor.http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome…

b. Mitochondrial DNA studies have been done on thousands of different species. There is a section of DNA on the mitochondria that doesn't code for proteins and is free to randomly accumulate mutations. It is used as a sort of clock to show evolutionary relationships. When they sequence a few hundred base-pairs as is common, the odds of one of those sequences occurring randomly is one over a number with hundreds of zeros. The sequences show humans are 91% similar to chimps. We are less closely related to gorillas. They are not just randomly different. They are different in a way that suggests a common ancestor of humans and chimps. Chimps and humans share many of the differences between themselves and gorillas but have had enough time to accumulate many separate differences. That pattern is consistent with all other animals. It is powerful mathematical proof of evolution.

c. Many genes and genetic markers are shared by closely related animals. Some genes are maintained by virtually all animals but the number of genes that are similar or the same increases as they are more closely related. That also applies to non-coding regions so the argument that a similar animal will have similar genes is just distortion of actual data.

3. The logic in the writings of Darwin was so persuasive that it is impossible to ignore without just ignoring the evidence. We can see it in our domesticated animals and it is silly to think that nature can't select desirable characteristics. We know the time frames involved and we see how animals, including people, are adapted with regional differences. If there are persuasive arguments about errors in Darwin's simple logic, I haven't heard them.

About the most persuasive argument against evolution is that we don't know how life first started. That may be so but we know that the life equivalent to modern bacteria started about 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago. If God created life, he create bacteria almost 4 billion years ago and humans have only been around a tiny percentage of that time. The same egocentric view believing humans are the center of the universe falls flat on its face when you consider the hundreds of billions of other galaxies and the vast time they have been around.

Actually, the most persuasive argument to a non-religious person against evolution is the fact that the process has to be entirely random for it to be true (Complex biological organisms randomly assembling themselves from nothing). That's the main reason people reject the theory that don't have religious beliefs to sway them in a particular direction. In fact, that line of thinking is so effective at debunking evolution that they had to redefine natural selection just to have any reasonable reply to that one argument. It is now defined as a "Gradual, non-random process".

The mutations the theory needs in order to be true are admittedly 100% random (evolutionists admit that freely). Natural selection is simply the fact that if an organism can not reproduce and/or survive in a given environment, the species will die off. It doesn't add any information into the gene pool (nor can it) nor does it have an influence on the mutations.....it becomes obvious to the independant thinker that it doesn't somehow make the process any less random. That's why most people reject it that do not have a religious belief system. That one point is usually what does it.

 

[Crucifiction]

Carbon Dating: The History Of Life On Earth (VIDEO) - Huffington Post

 

[DannyC]

Actually, the most persuasive argument to a non-religious person against evolution is the fact that the process has to be entirely random for it to be true (Complex biological organisms randomly assembling themselves from nothing). That's the main reason people reject the theory that don't have religious beliefs to sway them in a particular direction. In fact, that line of thinking is so effective at debunking evolution that they had to redefine natural selection just to have any reasonable reply to that one argument. It is now defined as a "Gradual, non-random process".

The mutations the theory needs in order to be true are admittedly 100% random (evolutionists admit that freely). Natural selection is simply the fact that if an organism can not reproduce and/or survive in a given environment, the species will die off. It doesn't add any information into the gene pool (nor can it) nor does it have an influence on the mutations.....it becomes obvious to the independant thinker that it doesn't somehow make the process any less random. That's why most people reject it that do not have a religious belief system. That one point is usually what does it.

"(Complex biological organisms randomly assembling themselves from nothing)." No where does the theory imply random assembly. Your straw-man argument is a weak one, due to the fact it is pure mis-information.

"It is now defined as a "Gradual, non-random process"." It is 'now' defined? Now? Find me one published evolutionary biologist who doesn't refer to natural selection as 'non-random'. Would you like me to quote Charles Darwin who states that natural selection is non-random?


"Natural selection is simply the fact that if an organism can not reproduce and/or survive in a given environment, the species will die off." Natural selection is inherited traits which prove beneficial to the species, are preserved (naturally selected) and passed on to future generations, while non-beneficial traits and not preserved and are thus rejected, by the lack of propagation of the animals and of said genes. Those are my own words. What nonsense is it to write (can not reproduce) if the species cannot reproduce, then it dies off in the first generation. You have mentioned nothing about genetics or sexual selection or divergences among species, or variations, or embrology or biology or even chemistry.

Add 'any information' would you like to elaborate on your idea of information. "nor does it have an influence on the mutations" What is 'it'? Also it appears you just admitted to acknowledging genetic mutations.

I have discussed this with you and I have stated it before you hacksaw version of 'natural selection' is not only incorrect but a pure straw-man, to which you are intellectually dishonest. I wouldn't personally have addressed you over this, but your attempt to disrepresent biologists and biology in general is not acceptable.One point I will make to follow my question is that I am not looking for someone to state genetic mutations are random, but that your idea that natural selection

1. Has been redefined as non-random.

2. Is completely random.


So I ask you give me one published peer reviewed journal that titles natural selection as 'completely random'. And then after that show me the process or shall we say evolution of the definition of natural selection.

 

[danschance]

Here we go again............feeding the trolls and chasing our tails.
One thing rabid atheists love is to argue. It is their drug of choice as they need to force others to believe as they do.

 

[Crucifiction]

Here we go again............feeding the trolls and chasing our tails.
One thing rabid atheists love is to argue. It is their drug of choice as they need to force others to believe as they do.

View attachment 48929

 

[RedTent]

Here is another way to think of this with a completely different mindset.

The way we think was introduced by the Greeks about 2,500 years ago, or quite recently as the world goes. We use logic and common sense and why? How? If God wrote Genesis for how we think today He would use facts, how much time each step took, and explanations that not a human today could understand.

When God wrote Genesis He gave every fact that was necessary, and for thousands of years it satisfied. God created the world. That is fact and we really don't need more, but we need to know that. We are to celebrate that by using our week timeframe. We are to work and produce for six days. Then take a day our to reflect on that and give our time to Him. To help us with that God gave a special blessing for that day.

For thousands of years this was understood, accepted, and it was enough. Our greek type thinking is behind the inventions we have, it is all commonsense and logic can give us, but it is useless thinking when it comes to creation.

 

[danschance]

Oh this is interesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRuKuGBd0Bo

 

[Relena7]

To the Christians and Atheists alike: Really??? You're really going to argue about this?

 

[danschance]

This is very interesting too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXg82KuO184

 

[TomH]

Oh this is interesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRuKuGBd0Bo

When it happened to me and I was in the light, there wasn't any talking going on. It's like spoken language was unnecessary because I just knew unconditional love and total peace. Then, when I was back in my body, I was just compelled to look in the bedside stand where there was nothing but a Gideon's bible.

 

[danschance]

I believe it. I find NDE to be interesting.

 

[Crucifiction]

Yes, near death experiences further prove evolution
because we wouldn't be able to experience them
without our evolved brains.

 

[Ariel82]

crucifiction, your logic is somewhat to be desired as in its absent in many of your statements.

I've always been taught and believed in evolution to a point but your presentation of evolutionary theory is wrong and amatuerish.

i'll go back and point out a few examples I could see glaring at me.

 

[Ariel82]

Yes, near death experiences further prove evolution
because we wouldn't be able to experience them
without our evolved brains.

illogical: one could say just as easily that NDE are because God created humans that way.

What is the benefit for basic survival for NDE? camoflauge?

 

[Ariel82]

The fact of evolution

View attachment 48839

I've always wondered why this "proves" evolution. it could just as easily be explained as how God used the substances of the world to create animals.

View attachment 48840

Notice how there are no human or mammal fossils at the bottom of the
geologic column. All it would take is one fossil out of order and evolution
could be disproved. However, the geologic column reflects exactly what
evolution predicts - the gradual rise of complexity.

sometimes fossils are found out of order and people explain it away as tectonic shifts.

if you are truly Christian as your profile proclaims, how do you understand the first few chapters of Genesis?

 

[SarahM777]

The fact of evolution


Notice how there are no human or mammal fossils at the bottom of the
geologic column. All it would take is one fossil out of order and evolution
could be disproved. However, the geologic column reflects exactly what
evolution predicts - the gradual rise of complexity.

Sorry that does not prove evolution,if you will notice all of the creatures at the bottom are very slow moving creatures,they are less likely to be able to remove themselves in the case of a disaster. Two when you start having mud slides into the oceans,you will not at first have many land dwelling creatures the first that would be buried would be the bottom dwelling sea creatures. IE the first layer in the so called column,the next would be the other remaining sea creatures as they get caught between the bottom and the mud still flowing in,fish and sea creatures that can swim would be next,you would not land animals as much nor should one expect to find the land creatures yet. They would only get caught when the mud slides become great enough for them to be swept into the sea and be buried. The layering is EXACTLY as one should expect in a flood.

 

[SarahM777]

Actually, the most persuasive argument to a non-religious person against evolution is the fact that the process has to be entirely random for it to be true (Complex biological organisms randomly assembling themselves from nothing). That's the main reason people reject the theory that don't have religious beliefs to sway them in a particular direction. In fact, that line of thinking is so effective at debunking evolution that they had to redefine natural selection just to have any reasonable reply to that one argument. It is now defined as a "Gradual, non-random process".

The mutations the theory needs in order to be true are admittedly 100% random (evolutionists admit that freely). Natural selection is simply the fact that if an organism can not reproduce and/or survive in a given environment, the species will die off. It doesn't add any information into the gene pool (nor can it) nor does it have an influence on the mutations.....it becomes obvious to the independant thinker that it doesn't somehow make the process any less random. That's why most people reject it that do not have a religious belief system. That one point is usually what does it.

I am still waiting for them to be able to explain how a creature goes from egg laying to live birth,and not kill off the animals? Egg laying and live births depend on a complex system of reproduction. You can't have a half way in between that can actually reproduce,so how is it even possible for that to happen in the first place?

 

[danschance]

illogical: one could say just as easily that NDE are because God created humans that way.

What is the benefit for basic survival for NDE? camoflauge?

I would say NDE's are proof in an after life. One person who experienced an NDE was a neurosurgeon. He was placed in a drug induced coma which shut down all cognitive function. Meaning it was impossible for him to think, fantasize and dream. Yet he recalled vivid of being in a beautiful place he calls Heaven, in spite of the fact he was a skeptic. He said while he was in Heaven, a woman remained with him. He did not know who this woman was until four months after this experience he saw a picture of a sister he had never known because he was adopted as a baby and that picture was her.

Eben Alexander's Near Death Experience, Pt 1 | The Dr. Oz Show

Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife: Eben Alexander: 9781451695199: Amazon.com: Books