Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

It's behind their subscription barrier, though it's old enough that registering for free may let you read it.Everybody here ought to register, anyway - you'll waste even more time digging around the 'net if you do. What joy!

The reply to this argument is two-fold:(1) This designer must either have designed every single piece of life to look exactly as it would have evolved naturally, down to the inclusion of things that don't make sense from a design standpoint -- using the argument of reusing common parts (which is the basis of the argument). Thus we have octopus with retinas facing the light source and all mammals with the retina facing away from the light source. There is no example of "common design" to match that of the design of rear-window wipers on autos, only examples that follow from the much more restrictive theory of common descent. As long as the concept of a designer doesn't add information or predictive purpose to the evaluation of biology it is not useful to the scientific understanding of life. AND without any evidence of a common design element that cannot be due to common descent this is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.OR (2) This designer must have designed the start of life (or designed the universe to start life somewhere) and used evolution to proceed from that point. The only question then is when this start of life occurred: evolution is de facto a part of creation. Or it depends on the PURPOSE of the design ... Enjoyand welcome to the fray.Edited by RAZD, : not i

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Curious why you think biogeography is too complicated for people to comprehend. You can find the evidence in National Geography in nice glossy pictures. It is also a question that creation science is noticeably quiet.Biogeography is probably one of the easiest to comprehend concepts and is readily accessible to all.Why the absence of some species from environments that would suit them? Why do polar bears live in the Arctic, but not the Antarctic - visa versa for penguins. Why are marsupials found mostly in Australia but not in Africa.Why are there overwhelming closer relationships between species that are geographically near each other than between species that inhabit similar environments? For example, many species that are found on coastal islands are usually closely related to species on the nearest mainland - however the different species can be very distinct.Another example is the Kaibab and Abert's squirrel each found on the opposite sides the geographic barrier of the Grand Canyon. There are many many examples of this.Of course these examples are from extant species but the same pattern is found in extinct species via the fossils record.

Perhaps you're right - it certainly doesn't get much attention anyway. The last time I tried to use that as an argument though, I received blank looks (that is: "Well, that's how God made it") and an accusation of circular reasoning (assuming evolution was true, to provide evidence for evolution. The creationist was unable to elaborate further on how this destroyed my argument). That was the reason I said it was complicated. It certainly now think it deserves a little more attention in this argument. I'll do a search on this forum for something on it...Anyway as I said, you are right though that creationists are largely silent on it. It does get a mention in creo books like "Darwin on Trial", and Answers in Genesis has this to say:

quote:

---

...creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as they repopulated the earth.

---

So, I present the above paragraph as proof that creationists really don't understand biogeography.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

I'll go with the simple fact that creationists have had a century and a half to find a single piece of evidence against the theory of evolution: and they've failed.Now that's a well-verified theory.

So, you'd opt for the defensive approach? Simply show the creationists why they're wrong whenever they appear, but don't try to convince them?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

The primary thing that made my father feel he had to, despite religion, accept evolution is pretty simple, the fact that we have so much in common with other mammals. I grew up with that attitude because there were many relatives who felt the same empathy with mammals and essentially came to the same conclusion. This of course means we are not 'special' but rather a part of the mammalian order.To point out a few, mammals (except in some cases of monotremes) think, have emotions, plan, feel pleasure and pain, have sex (similarly), crap (the same), piss (the same), have hair, give live birth, females provide milk, train their offspring, etc. etc,Because the old man's emotional connection with other mammals was so pronounced, he even felt that horses, cats, dogs, etc. went to heaven like people.Once one gets over the 'humans as special' dogma, those primates, especially apes, start looking and even behaving a lot like people. It becomes no great leap to see the connection especially after being exposed to the findings of physical anthropology and the obvious intermediate forms between humans and the common ancestor of all apes.
After that, the ToE becomes a given.

This thread has settled down now, so I'd like to take things in a bit of a different direction, if I may. Once you've got some piece of evidence, how do you make it more convincing to a creationist?Personally, I think the information should be 'sugar-coated', and most certainly should not stress the ignorance or attack the religion of the creationist (because then the creationist will think he/she is being attacked, so will put up defenses against your teaching). For this reason, I'm not a fan of the defensive approach. But, creationists are a very different target audience to those who read Scientific American, so I think need the information to be presented in a different way.So, how should the evidence be presented to appeal to a creationist?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Since you are looking for really really simple examples how about...Male NipplesI was recently reminded of this on another thread. If man was created instantaneously and before women why do male mammals have nipples?I think that has to be one simple and readily observable problem for Creation Science. That is one issue that, even after a contrived and improbable Creation "Science" defense, will stick in one's craw and persist as a real problem for the Creation "Scientist".

There isn't much you can say to a YEC that they won't see as an attack on their religion.You can't convince a fanatic with facts. You have to attack the fanaticism at its source.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Doddy, Whilst I admire the sentiment, I think calling something the evidential equivalent of the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, the Boogy-Man is perfectly valid if it is so. And it is.There is far too much pandering to ridiculous religious sensibilities.If something is ridiculous, SAY SO! Really, you wouldn't give a seconds thought to preserving someones feelings if they still believed in Father Christmas at age 40, would you?If someone wants to substitute wishful thinking as reality, then hoist them on the petard of reason. There is no need to apologise after the battle that you took no prisoners. It is they who should apologise, not you.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Doddy asked: Start this way. Appeal to the creationist's need to be at grace with God, Who loves humans so much He created us after His own image. Argue that knowledge is God's gift to us, and that we are more graceful in His eyes when we seek it, so as to understand Him in every possible way. To know Him is to give glory to Him (Psalms 66:1-2). It follows then that learning more about how God does His work is graceful in His eyes. After all, He has put us here to educate us, to teach us about His miracles. Evolution is one of them. Being an ardent student of all His works is the best any human can do in the eyes of the Lord. Finally, remind the creationist that Darwin never intended to do anything other than that, becasue he too believed in the Creator.”HM

iceage wrote: Good observation. The Bible clearly got that one wrong. Man obviously morphed from woman. You can trace every one of our masculine features back to their feminine roots.”HM

This argument is a disaster for evolution! It leads to the obvious question: "Why do women have nipples? Evolutionists insist that mammals, including humans, evolved from reptiles. But reptiles don't have nipples. The defining feature of mammals is (ta da) mammary glands (referred to as breasts in humans, utters in ruminants, teats in ungulates, and gazongas in sports bar waitresses). Those mammary glands are supposed to provide nourishment to each species' young, where that nourishment consists of hundreds of essential nutrients. The lack of any one of these essential nutrients will render those young as less fit to survive into adulthood and produce more offspring. So, how did we get from disemboobilated reptiles to mammaried mammals simultaneously producing this incredibly complex mixture of medically proven ingredients? We know that the AIG (that's AnswersInGenisis) web page has a list of arguments that creationists should avoid using. Perhaps you evolutionists should also have a list of arguments the you should avoid to help keep you out of trouble.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : added a ")"

Start with some point of agreement: most (not all) will agree that microevolution occurs. You may not be able to get them to agree on a definition of microevolution (eg my great debate thread) but this issue you can agree on is that all modern species have evolved from recent ancestors.Whether this is microevolution within kinds or standard evolution is not that critical at this point.What this shows then is that the issue is NOT evolution per se but the concept of common ancestor and how far back we go.Then the issue becomes age of the earth. And the ability of life to adapt over that time.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.