A secular friend asked me if I believe in evolution. Here is a couple of the things I told him.
Observable physio/anatomical changes in organisms:
Rearrangement/ activation of segments of existing genetic material which result in the modification of anatomical or physiological attributes, or in other words the process of speciation as facilitated by adaptive radiation, via natural selection of favourable traits.
What this proves is that finches turn into finches, humans turn into humans, and wolves turn into wolves, but the secularist asks: these variants, with all of their morphological disparity, surely warrant revised classification as distinct genuses or (with enough time) different families and orders?
Well it really depends on how one classifies organisms. The facts prove natural selection, but natural selection actually refutes evolution... That's correct, natural selection disproves Darwinian evolution because it is selecting on existing traits already present in the genetic material of organisms. Elaborated, rather than selecting on novel genetic material (which is a requisite to evolution) natural selection simply selects on differing expressions of pre-existent genetic material, so a coyote, wolf, and Saint Bernard, can be classified as one kind because they share the same genes (in respect to quantity and information present). Where they differ is in the expression of certain genes (activation and deactivation of parts of genetic material) which result in varying phenotypic traits. Therefore the limits of anatomical variation within a kind are literally programmed into its genome. Evolutionists try to argue that the variations in the genome of a kind are remnants of the organism's evolutionary past. This is ludicrous, if this theory was true then nothing would be related to anything because the genetic variations within one kind are completely different from the variations in the genome of other kinds that are believed to be closely related on the evolutionary tree.
Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, there is no change in the genetic information present. Selection is not Alteration. in fact rather than blindly chanting their mantra, natural selection, evolutionists should be trying to explain how all the dog, coyote, Ethiopian wolf, jackal, and dire wolf phenotypes got into the canis genome in the first place. Given enough time, a wolf can and will adapt to exhibit coyote traits and vice versa. (Before someone acts all wise, Genetic drift, bottleneck effect, isolation, etc are all terms describing natural selection.)
Evolution requires the spontaneous generation of novel genetic material from (as of yet) unknown chemical processes. so far we have failed to observe even a single protein forming via abiogenic processes let alone the millions of segments of genetic code needed for the formation of novel phenotypes from an existing genome, and before one argues, no biological process has been known to create or incorporate new genetic material to an established genome. Thus far every known mutation has damaged the genome rather than add new information, if mutations demonstrate anything then the correct term should be degeneration.
The fossil record:
Remnants of organisms entombed in hundreds of metres of petrified sediment consisting largely of mudstone. These sedimentary rocks account for a negligible presence in the earth's crust which largely consists of igneous and metamorphic Rock. Similar to Natural Selection, the fossil record is another crux of evolution that runs contrary to evolution.
There are crippling chronological issues in the geologic column. For example, coelocanths are living fossils, but they are only found in mid-Mesozoic sediment deposits. Triops cancriformis, are present only in Pennsylvanian strata, and absent from later strata. Aside from the conundrum of the living fossils, many proposed ancestral forms have been found in younger strata than their alleged descendants. Archaeopteryx have been found in strata pre dating maniraptorans which theoretically evolved into birds, and platybelodons have been discovered beside elephants.
Quality of Preservation is also another oddity, one would think that the younger fossils would be better preserved due to reduced exposure to the effects of weathering. However that is simply not the case, the best preserved fossils of soft tissue organisms are consistently found in older strata, such as Cambrian and Ordivician fossils, (pikaia being one example). Ironically this fact actually strongly suggests that these creatures were buried more soundly and quickly than subsequent fossils. To make matters worst, all evolutionists believe that fossils were formed by rapid burial in estuarine (flood) sediments, and go on to admit that there has never been a flood of comparable magnitude in recorded history. Therefore, according to evolutionists there have been millions of huge floods in the earth's prehistory (and these floods have never been observed or studied) and these consecutive floods created the geologic column that we know today.
As for radiometric dating the word contamination, comes to mind. Ignoring the possibility of fluctuations in decay rates, which have already been exhaustively contested, evolutionists often obtain inconsistent dates from rocks. When faced with these inconsistencies they simply infer that the rock sample was contaminated, and thus an unreliable reference. In a nutshell radiometric dating infers the age of a sample, based on its chemical composition. This dating methods rests not on fact but an biased assumption of the chemical composition of the rock when it was first formed. Therefore I could make a pile of lead and uranium, and by adjusting the proportion of these elements, obtain any age I desire. Although I might have made it in a few hours radiometric testing could reveal hundreds of millions of years of slow formation.
In conclusion it is amazing how one could challenge evolution solely using the scientific facts of evolution.
Observable physio/anatomical changes in organisms:
Rearrangement/ activation of segments of existing genetic material which result in the modification of anatomical or physiological attributes, or in other words the process of speciation as facilitated by adaptive radiation, via natural selection of favourable traits.
What this proves is that finches turn into finches, humans turn into humans, and wolves turn into wolves, but the secularist asks: these variants, with all of their morphological disparity, surely warrant revised classification as distinct genuses or (with enough time) different families and orders?
Well it really depends on how one classifies organisms. The facts prove natural selection, but natural selection actually refutes evolution... That's correct, natural selection disproves Darwinian evolution because it is selecting on existing traits already present in the genetic material of organisms. Elaborated, rather than selecting on novel genetic material (which is a requisite to evolution) natural selection simply selects on differing expressions of pre-existent genetic material, so a coyote, wolf, and Saint Bernard, can be classified as one kind because they share the same genes (in respect to quantity and information present). Where they differ is in the expression of certain genes (activation and deactivation of parts of genetic material) which result in varying phenotypic traits. Therefore the limits of anatomical variation within a kind are literally programmed into its genome. Evolutionists try to argue that the variations in the genome of a kind are remnants of the organism's evolutionary past. This is ludicrous, if this theory was true then nothing would be related to anything because the genetic variations within one kind are completely different from the variations in the genome of other kinds that are believed to be closely related on the evolutionary tree.
Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, there is no change in the genetic information present. Selection is not Alteration. in fact rather than blindly chanting their mantra, natural selection, evolutionists should be trying to explain how all the dog, coyote, Ethiopian wolf, jackal, and dire wolf phenotypes got into the canis genome in the first place. Given enough time, a wolf can and will adapt to exhibit coyote traits and vice versa. (Before someone acts all wise, Genetic drift, bottleneck effect, isolation, etc are all terms describing natural selection.)
Evolution requires the spontaneous generation of novel genetic material from (as of yet) unknown chemical processes. so far we have failed to observe even a single protein forming via abiogenic processes let alone the millions of segments of genetic code needed for the formation of novel phenotypes from an existing genome, and before one argues, no biological process has been known to create or incorporate new genetic material to an established genome. Thus far every known mutation has damaged the genome rather than add new information, if mutations demonstrate anything then the correct term should be degeneration.
The fossil record:
Remnants of organisms entombed in hundreds of metres of petrified sediment consisting largely of mudstone. These sedimentary rocks account for a negligible presence in the earth's crust which largely consists of igneous and metamorphic Rock. Similar to Natural Selection, the fossil record is another crux of evolution that runs contrary to evolution.
There are crippling chronological issues in the geologic column. For example, coelocanths are living fossils, but they are only found in mid-Mesozoic sediment deposits. Triops cancriformis, are present only in Pennsylvanian strata, and absent from later strata. Aside from the conundrum of the living fossils, many proposed ancestral forms have been found in younger strata than their alleged descendants. Archaeopteryx have been found in strata pre dating maniraptorans which theoretically evolved into birds, and platybelodons have been discovered beside elephants.
Quality of Preservation is also another oddity, one would think that the younger fossils would be better preserved due to reduced exposure to the effects of weathering. However that is simply not the case, the best preserved fossils of soft tissue organisms are consistently found in older strata, such as Cambrian and Ordivician fossils, (pikaia being one example). Ironically this fact actually strongly suggests that these creatures were buried more soundly and quickly than subsequent fossils. To make matters worst, all evolutionists believe that fossils were formed by rapid burial in estuarine (flood) sediments, and go on to admit that there has never been a flood of comparable magnitude in recorded history. Therefore, according to evolutionists there have been millions of huge floods in the earth's prehistory (and these floods have never been observed or studied) and these consecutive floods created the geologic column that we know today.
As for radiometric dating the word contamination, comes to mind. Ignoring the possibility of fluctuations in decay rates, which have already been exhaustively contested, evolutionists often obtain inconsistent dates from rocks. When faced with these inconsistencies they simply infer that the rock sample was contaminated, and thus an unreliable reference. In a nutshell radiometric dating infers the age of a sample, based on its chemical composition. This dating methods rests not on fact but an biased assumption of the chemical composition of the rock when it was first formed. Therefore I could make a pile of lead and uranium, and by adjusting the proportion of these elements, obtain any age I desire. Although I might have made it in a few hours radiometric testing could reveal hundreds of millions of years of slow formation.
In conclusion it is amazing how one could challenge evolution solely using the scientific facts of evolution.