The best evidence

Hey all,

Ok, so I was just thinking a while ago about what would be the best or most supportive evidence of evolution - a line of evidence that would be ultimately very difficult to disprove or handwave away. Then it hit me - traditionally, creationism is intrinsically bound to the 6,000 year figure, or 10,000 or whatever they've decided it is now. In any case, it cannot allow for 4.6 billion years of history. It is also fundamental that evolution (*sigh* macroevolution) requires the same long timescales - is cannot operate over the few thousand years allotted by creationism. Therefore the proof of that 4.6 billion years - geological evidence, including fossils, formations, everything - is the strongest line of evidence that cannot be refuted or ignored.

If creationists ever hope to have their hypotheses accepted, they must first knock away this particular cornerstone or turn it to their view - which is why the Flood comes up so often. It is the only explanation they have for the current geological record, no matter how flimsy it might be, so it must be defended as far as possible.

Here's my take on it - how, logically, you can arrive at the theory of evolution:

The geological record is arranged into many, many layers and formations. These formations logically are only formed by geological processes, which we observe today as taking a certain amount of time. We therefore assume that the layers represent long periods of time - an assumption borne out by the numerous changes in environment, and the sheer number of layers present.
In the layers, we find fossils. From our earlier assumption, we now say that these fossils are very old and must have existed at the same time as the sediment in which they were found, seeing as they could not have burrowed down from later sediments laid over them (this would leave traces which are not seen). Surprisingly enough, the fossils seem to be arranged in a pattern going from oldest to youngest - that of more complex species appearing (broadly speaking, of course). New species appear, old ones die out - sometimes gradually and sometimes immediately.
As we delve deeper into the relationship of the fossils to the environment, we see more patterns; species seem to appear and disappear depending on the state of the environment. What could this possibly mean? Well, we are aware that natural selection occurs - we see that creatures that are better adapted to the environment have a better chance of survival than those that are not. This is observed and documented; that those less suited to the environment (i.e. not as tolerant of the temperature, more susceptible to predation) are weeded out by environmental pressures, leaving the better suited to breed.
So what does this mean? We know that due to NS, species are capable of changing in response to their environment. We ask ourselves - is there a limit to how much change can occur? By examining the phenomenally long geological record, we logically deduce that there is not - as long as the environment puts pressure on a species, it will induce change in that species, even up to creating a new species that is rather different from the original. It seems to explain the fossils in the geological record very well. So we take this idea and test it against our evidence by examining the order of the fossils; this is a huge and fragile idea, and even a single fossil out of place will render it useless - a dinosaur in the Pre-Cambrian, a trilobite in the Quaternary, even a few spores in the wrong layer and all our work will have been for nothing. But lo and behold - it all seems to fit! Every new discovery just adds another piece to help solve the puzzle, and we end up marvelling at how well this one small idea connects so many diverse areas of science.
And we decided to call it evolution.

If anyone feels that there's some stronger line of evidence out there, let's hear it! Also, if anyone feels that the logic and assumptions are flawed in some way, please post your opinion - like I said, this is only my take on it.

The Rock Hound

Please show one (1) legitimate example of any species changing to a different species.
Science shows that when there is a change in a species, there is a loss of genetic information, nevera gain. This suggests to me that the first creatures must have been SUPER intelligent for us to have evolved to our level of intelligence.
Macca

Please show one (1) legitimate example of any species changing to a different species.
Science shows that when there is a change in a species, there is a loss of genetic information, nevera gain. This suggests to me that the first creatures must have been SUPER intelligent for us to have evolved to our level of intelligence.
Macca

Please show one (1) legitimate example of any species changing to a different species.

Science shows that when there is a change in a species, there is a loss of genetic information, nevera gain.