Evidence For Evolution

[Kyrisch]

I'm sick and tired of hearing Creationists say that there is no evidence for evolution. I hereby am compiling a list of the 10 most moving pieces of evidence there are. Since there is so much depth to each of them, I must be brief and so please, before discrediting any of it, do some research (I suggest wikipedia as a place to start). In addition, evolution is not a house of cards and treating it as such is a fallacy. Just because you think that one or even a few of these are invalid (and they may well be able to be explained in other ways), does not mean that evolution as a whole is invalid. Let us begin.

Evolution predicts the existence of Transitional Fossils.

It has been shown that the genetic family tree matches perfectly with the predicted nested hierarchy of evolution.

It has been shown that the biochemical tree of metabolic processes of creatures matches perfectly with the predicted nested hierarchy of evolution.

It has been shown that the pattern of Endogenous Retroviruses matches perfectly with the predicted nested hierarchy of evolution.

Evolution predicts imperfection such as the blind spot of the eye and the weakness of the spine as an upright structure.

Evolution predicts vestigial structures such as the tail bone in humans, the vestigial claws on the abdomen of the snake, and the vestigial toe bones in the back fins of whales.

The related idea of punctuated equilibrium matches the extensive fossil record.

The appendages of bat wings, whale fins, the human arm, and cat legs all are comprised of the same joint structure with different proportional bone sizes.

Artificial selection has been used by breeders since the dawn of human civilisation to drastically shape an organism over time.

The extensively documented fossil records of the history of the horse shows an unmistakable evolutionary trend.

Oh, and the fossils of the 'missing links' have been found. Awhile ago.

EDIT: Also a favourite, speciation has been observed countless times.

 

[USincognito]

I'm predicting your OP will be dismissed with handwaving, ad hoc or off topic Bible verses in short order.

If you smell one wiff of interest from a Creationist about the topic, myopically focus on replying to them and ignore the deniers.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Remember this site is visited by far more people that post here, in the light of evidence posted by you and others, these visitors are able to digest the evidence and arguments put forth by both side; I think I slightly off there, the evidence is put forward by the scientific side, but no matter, the lurkers are the one’s who gain most from these threads and my money is on the science community here have the greatest impact.

 

[Vene]

Ha, evilutionist fools. If evilution was true than Satanic scientists would find a fish-frog, but that's never happened. Those fools.

 

[seeker777]

The Creationists won't care what evidence you post. They will simply shrug their shoulders, utter that God did it, case closed and let you know that they will pray for you.

They simply could care less that their fantastical belief is consistently trumped by science.

Dogmatic absolutism is more important for their system of belief than in seeking the truth.

 

[Kyrisch]

I understand that most Creationists will ignore this. Nothing can get to those kinds. This is just to put off the "Teach the Controversy!" group that has been growing and whose major slogans include "there is no evidence for evolution" and that "it's only a theory".

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I'm predicting your OP will be dismissed with handwaving, ad hoc or off topic Bible verses in short order.

If you smell one wiff of interest from a Creationist about the topic, myopically focus on replying to them and ignore the deniers.

Post=stolen

 

[tcampen]

I would add the reality of Cytochrome-C sequences as part of ubiquitous protiens as an overwhelming evidence for evolution that no special creation assertion can rationally explain. But that's just getting picky.

 

[keith99]

You mean something like a walking catfish?

Ha, evilutionist fools. If evilution was true than Satanic scientists would find a fish-frog, but that's never happened. Those fools.

 

[keith99]

Evolution predicts the existence of Transitional Fossils.

It has been shown that the genetic family tree matches perfectly with the predicted nested hierarchy of evolution.

It has been shown that the biochemical tree of metabolic processes of creatures matches perfectly with the predicted nested hierarchy of evolution.

It has been shown that the pattern of Endogenous Retroviruses matches perfectly with the predicted nested hierarchy of evolution.

Real scientists have a word for when things fit perfectly...

Dry Lab.

BTW Chemistry is a very old discipline.

 

[Vene]

That's obviously of the cat kind. It has cat in the name and we all know that Adam named all the kinds.

 

[Markus6]

And the two chimp chromosomes that are fused in humans? That's a pretty good one.

 

[Vene]

Stupid evilutionist fools, you can't even show one species turning into another.
Observed Speciation
Everybody knows you guys are full of it, give your little descent with modification fairy tale a rest.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Markus stole my favorite. That combined with ERVs and our Vitamin C deficiency is pretty much enough evidence to hold up in court, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Stupid evilutionist fools, you can't even show one species turning into another.
Observed Speciation
Everybody knows you guys are full of it, give your little descent with modification fairy tale a rest.

Amen, Vene! The evilutionist list of speciation events will convinced only the weak-minded. Anyone with any common sense can see that the lizards are still lizards, so they're still the same kind. Duh. Do you have any evidence of lizards turning into lemurs? Huh? Pwned! Unless you can show animals changing kind in a test tube on a Thursday morning while I'm watching, I'm not going to listen to your supposed "evidence".

And, no, I'm not going to define kind. It's obvious -- cats are cat kind, dogs are dog kind, unicorns are unicorn kind. "Kind" is from God's Magic Happy Taxonomy and cannot be understood by sinful "scientists".

 

[juvenissun]

Remember this site is visited by far more people that post here, in the light of evidence posted by you and others, these visitors are able to digest the evidence and arguments put forth by both side; I think I slightly off there, the evidence is put forward by the scientific side, but no matter, the lurkers are the one’s who gain most from these threads and my money is on the science community here have the greatest impact.

On the contrary, I think this forum is only visited by people who posted here. And the content of all posts has NO value in science.

 

[Danyc]

On the contrary, I think this forum is only visited by people who posted here. And the content of all posts has NO value in science.

Are you joking?

As I type this, I see 2 members in this subforum and 18 guests.

It is always like this. Lurkers come and go big-time.

 

[USincognito]

Hemoglobin (scroll down to the Lamprey's Tale section for the details)

 

[sfs]

The chromosome 2 fusion is a nice example of how the hypothesis of common descent produces testable and accurate predictions, but I don't find it compelling as a way to distinguish between common descent and special creation as alternatives. Humans could have started with the unfused chromosomes in either a creationist or common descent scenario. All the evidence shows is that the fusion occurred.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

The chromosome 2 fusion is a nice example of how the hypothesis of common descent produces testable and accurate predictions, but I don't find it compelling as a way to distinguish between common descent and special creation as alternatives. Humans could have started with the unfused chromosomes in either a creationist or common descent scenario. All the evidence shows is that the fusion occurred.

But that implies random mutation which implies evolution. So why accept that God made Man by divine fiat out of clay (with a virtually identical genome to chimps) but then Man evolved via mutation to have fused chromosomes? Once you've opened the door to evolution via mutation, what reason is there to reject common descent? I mean, sure you can ad hoc away anything, but that doesn't mean it makes it reasonable to do so.

And once you include ERVs and Vitamin C with HC2...