What is the evidence for evolution?

[alexiscurious]

Since more and more Christians are leaning towards evolution, can someone briefly tell me what scientists have discovered that has made everyone so certain that we came from apes?

I have absolutely no knowledge on the matter. I have only ever attended a Christian school and their science textbooks were from a biblical perspective so I know next to nothing about evolution. This semester I am also taking a physical anthropology course so I will learn more of the details there.

Thanks.

 

[Yardstick]

I would encourage you to go to BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony where you can read a great deal of articles about the evidence for evolution from a Biblical perspective.

 

[ebia]

If you want the science, go to a science source.

 

[freezerman2000]

If you want the science, go to a science source.

And don't let someone else make up your mind for you about evolution..Think for yourself

 

[ebia]

And don't let someone else make up your mind for you about evolution..Think for yourself

Assuming one has built up the background skills to be able to do that. And even then you will be unavoidably reliant on the work of others. The point where one can build up one's knowledge from scratch without using the work of others is long past.

Either way, if you want the science go to a (proper) science source.

 

[freezerman2000]

I should have included"when all the facts are in"

 

[ebia]

I should have included"when all the facts are in"

the "facts" are only as good as the processing applied to them

 

[hankroberts]

Since more and more Christians are leaning towards evolution, can someone briefly tell me what scientists have discovered that has made everyone so certain that we came from apes?

I have absolutely no knowledge on the matter. I have only ever attended a Christian school and their science textbooks were from a biblical perspective so I know next to nothing about evolution. This semester I am also taking a physical anthropology course so I will learn more of the details there.

Thanks.

First, the Evolutionist position is not that we come from apes, but that all life originated from a single life form.

Second, you are going to have great difficulty finding accurate information of the "scientific evidence for Evolution". I was an Evolutionist. I abandoned that position because I took a careful look at the evidence. I reject Evolution not because of my religious views but because it is terrible science.

If you are interested in doing some work, I recommend as a good starting place this site: The Journey - AllAboutTheJourney.org

If you have additional questions, I have a lot of materials, but most are my own notes on research.

 

[ViaCrucis]

First, the Evolutionist position is not that we come from apes, but that all life originated from a single life form.

Neither of those. Common descent =/= evolution. Though common descent is the rational conclusion from the evidence we have of evolution. Evolution deals with the natural processes by which populations of organisms change over the course of succeeding generations due to natural selection. Evolution does not say "we come from apes" though evolution does demonstrate that we are, in fact, apes being most closely related to chimpanzees due to our having a common ancestor with chimpanzees several million years in the past. Evolution says that with time and environmental pressures favorable mutations become preferred (because they lead to survivability and better chances of reproduction) and become dominant in a population. For which the evidence is overwhelming.

Evolution describes mechanisms, processes, observable ones. The inter-relatedness of populations and different species pointing to common descent are inferences rooted in the observed science.

-Evolution happens, we see it happening. That includes observed speciation.

-The fossil record is filled with evidence of evolutionary stepping stones, in the case of hominids we have fossils from anthropithicus to homo erectus to neanderthal and early modern man (homo sapiens sapiens).

-Genetic and molecular studies demonstrate the relatedness between different life groups, in the case of the great apes it demonstrates the closeness between chimps and humans, and both with the other great apes such as gorillas and orangutans.

These are three examples for the belief in common descent, as such common descent is a natural and rational inference based upon data from different sources all pointing toward the same thing. But evolution isn't the same thing as common descent, evolution is simply one piece in the larger picture that, when assembled, shows common descent.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hankroberts]

The definition of “evolution” according to evolutionists requires at least three elements:
o A process of movement from non-life to life, then from the simplest life to the most complex life;
o Purely naturalistic, materialistic processes to bring about these changes over great time spans;
o And a complete absence of purpose, intent or intellectual determination (intelligent influence).
It must be noted and recognized prior to any discussion that all three of these elements are essential to any definition of ‘evolution’ that will be acceptable to evolutionists. “Evolution” can then be defined something like this: ‘Evolution’ is the theory that unintentional natural processes over time have produced life from non-life, then through natural modification over vast amounts of time resulted in the development of the great diversity of life that currently exists, from a single simple life form.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The definition of “evolution” according to evolutionists requires at least three elements:
o A process of movement from non-life to life, then from the simplest life to the most complex life;
o Purely naturalistic, materialistic processes to bring about these changes over great time spans;
o And a complete absence of purpose, intent or intellectual determination (intelligent influence).
It must be noted and recognized prior to any discussion that all three of these elements are essential to any definition of ‘evolution’ that will be acceptable to evolutionists. “Evolution” can then be defined something like this: ‘Evolution’ is the theory that unintentional natural processes over time have produced life from non-life, then through natural modification over vast amounts of time resulted in the development of the great diversity of life that currently exists, from a single simple life form.

Provide text book definitions which back this claim up or else admit that this is not the definition. This might fly on Creationist websites which are unable to understand evolution except as a cultural bogey man, but I'm asking that you back this up with credible, actual definitions provided in academic literature.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hankroberts]

Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in his book Origin of Species in 1859. In this theory he proposed that unintended, undirected completely natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes were sufficient to explain the existence and great diversity of life. Modern evolution theory has expanded to include several other issues, and currently asserts that purely natural and undirected causes are sufficient to explain the existence of all we know, including the physical universe, the existence of life and the wide diversity of life that we see.
The Journey - AllAboutTheJourney.org

“All the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic factors; …on the basis of differential reproduction and mainly random processes of heredity … Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” (George Gaylord Simpson)

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
(UC Berkeley course materials on Understanding Evolution)

Those are the ones I had most handy. It has always been my goal to not tell Evolutionists what they believe, but to let them speak for themselves: the elements in the first post are directly from Evolutionists. I began my study of this subject as a convinced Evolutionist who clearly understood the teachings of Evolution. and I've been studying it now for more than thirty years; intensely since the mid-70's.

 

[freezerman2000]

And yet,you didn't touch on your first point.."life from nonlife"
It has nothing to do with evolution..
Origins of life is a completely different topic

 

[hankroberts]

And yet,you didn't touch on your first point.."life from nonlife"
It has nothing to do with evolution..
Origins of life is a completely different topic

Uh, "this theory he proposed that unintended, undirected completely natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes were sufficient to explain the existence and great diversity of life."
“All the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic factors; …on the basis of differential reproduction and mainly random processes of heredity … Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” (George Gaylord Simpson)

True that Darwin himself put very little emphasis on Origins, and also true that many other evolutionists don't, focusing on other issues (it is, after all, a widely diverse topic).

Origins is an additional element of Evolution, and many supporters of evolution try to isolate the two, but the fact is that the link is inevitable. If one begins with the presumption that "… Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (George Gaylord Simpson) then it is unavoidable that one find some explanation for the existence of the universe, and of life. And that struggle continues because the greatest controversy and dispute comes, not from anti-evolutionists, but from within the community of evolutionists.

Edited to add: just additional notes on the subject...
“However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.”
“When did life originate? Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago.”
“Although several lines of evidence are consistent with the hypothesis that life began near deep sea vents, it is far from certain…”
UC Berkeley course “Understanding Evolution” notes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

“All the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic factors; …on the basis of differential reproduction and mainly random processes of heredity … Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” (George Gaylord Simpson)

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
(UC Berkeley course materials on Understanding Evolution)

I'm only considering these two and the first quote you offer doesn't meet the criteria I asked.

Could you provide citations of these two quotes, being completely unable to examine the source myself I am unable to comment. The Simpson quote is clearly fragment as evidenced by the elipses, and of course I've no clue what Berkeley course materials are being referenced either.

That said, I'm having a hard time seeing even in the presented material a statement that supports your given definition of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[aiki]

Macro evolution is crippled by serious problems. And the many just-so stories by evolutionists about how we have evolved from "goo to you by way of the zoo" don't change this one bit.

Adaptation, mutation, natural selection - these all occur. But the assumption that, given long enough periods of time, these mechanisms can produce the life we have today from a starting condition of non-life is, well, total nonsense.

Selah.

 

[ebia]

Macro evolution is crippled by serious problems. And the many just-so stories by evolutionists about how we have evolved from "goo to you by way of the zoo" don't change this one bit.

Adaptation, mutation, natural selection - these all occur. But the assumption that, given long enough periods of time, these mechanisms can produce the life we have today from a starting condition of non-life is, well, total nonsense.

Selah.

Strawman

 

[aiki]

Strawman

LOL! Nope.

 

[ebia]

LOL! Nope.

It is. Evolution doesn't say anything about non-life becoming anything. Only about what happens when there is life.

 

[hankroberts]

"the first quote you offer doesn't meet the criteria I asked."

Well, that is because you asked for a ridiculous criteria: I have neither a need nor the intention of providing "text book definitions" since that is not required to justify my statement. All that is required is sound references from evolutionists, which I did provide.

"Could you provide citations"

The first was from Darwin's book, though the quote itself came second hand from the "journey" website I referenced. I presume you're familiar with his books? The second was from that site. The Simpson quote was from my notes but I believe it comes from one of his books, The Meaning of Evolution (1959). And if you bother to actually read Simpson, you will see the quote leaves out nothing of significance: it accurately represents his statement. I'm actually rather surprised you would presume to speak with some authority on the subject and yet not be familiar with one of the foremost Evolutionists in history. The Berkeley references were all from their current webpage on Evolution, at Understanding Evolution.

"I'm having a hard time seeing even in the presented material a statement that supports your given definition of evolution."

Then I suggest you go back and read it again. It is quite clear.