Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

I'm sure many of you, the members of this site, have spent a long time debating with creationists. You probably know what sort of things they ignore, what things they won't understand, and what things they don't want to know.So, taking all this into account, what is your personal opinion regarding the evidence for evolution? What piece of evidence have you been successful with in debating creationists? Perhaps you have an 'old faithful' example, maybe a transitional or a homologous structure, that always does the trick. Maybe you once were a creationist, and some amazing evidence did the trick. Or do you think that nothing works, and the only way for a creationist to work things out is to come to the realisation it himself (or herself)?In my opinion, I don't think genetics, atavisms, radiometric dating, fossils or biogeography are very useful evidences, because they are too complicated for creationists to comprehend. Too often, they will resort to a creationist website instead of trying to understand it. Also, I used to think that structural homology was better evidence, but I came across a creationists who said that "A modern Corolla and a Camry share the same design, because they are both made by Toyota" so that stopped that line of reasoning. Personally, I'm now giving up on evidence-based approaches, and am going on the defensive: just refute creationist claims until they realise that they are wrong, and let them work it out from there.So, this is why I wanted to start this thread. Help re-inspire me that creationists can, sometimes, understand and be convinced by evidence.PS:I hope this topic hasn't been done recently. Actually, I you know of it being done at all, please link to it as I would appreciate reading it.

---

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!

That is ever so true. However, there must be some methods that are more effective at getting said "horse" to think.You mentioned "contentless pablum abd rhetorical essays". Do you think that we should change our language from that of concise scientific prose to something more akin to a convincing and persuasive discourse?PS: I once had a creationist who had much the same problem with me as I had with him. He refused to use logical reasoning and observation of the evidence, and I refused to use faith in scripture. Ultimately, the problem was that I thought what I could reason from the evidence was more true than what I could read (and interpret) in the Bible, but he thought the other way around.You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him believe your dogma.

---

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!

Not meaning to hijack this thread (if there is too much debate, I'll find/start another thread for this) but the problem with Junk DNA, as I experience it, is that increasingly more of it is found to have function. There is a professor at my university, Prof John Mattick, who is a proponent of this hypothesis that most junk DNA is actually doing something (read his piece in the journal Science here). He is pretty famous overseas (with publications in Nature and Science) let alone here, which leads to a problem if I try bring up junk DNA as an argument with creationists around campus (who tell me that God made it work like that, and how slow scientists are to only just now be working that out).Edited by Doddy, : punctuation

---

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!

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!

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!

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!

We certainly should. Maybe you could start a thread on it?

---

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!

Sorry Mod, but I'm now not really inclined to use male nipples as an evidence, after reading some really wacky nonsense on AiG: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

There is no direct argument for evolution here. As pointed out, [male nipples] don’t provide the slightest indication of a phylogeny (evolutionary history), since no evolutionist believes we descended from an all-female mammal species.

---

Therefore, it's obviously not simple enough for the average creationist, if Dr Jonathan Sarfati can't comprehend it.

---

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!

This is probably one of the most successful methods of convincing a creationist about evolution - convince them that their religion is not in opposition to science: evolution says nothing about God, but it no more atheistic than a recipe for cake, which also says nothing about God.However, it is not really the subject of this thread. The people I'm dealing with are usually science students, who of course are religiously motivated in part, but who should be able to be convinced with facts. Regardless of whether it's the right method to be using, this thread is about which evidence for evolution is the best, and how to present it better.Edited by Doddy, : spelling

---

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!

It does, however, have the benefit of not using science to make the point. With some people, theology and/or philosophy can be more straight-forward and easier to comprehend than the science behind evolution.But you are certainly right that the fundamentalists will be nearly impossible to convince of this, but tell me, do you think it would be easier in comparison to convince those people with the science?

---

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!

In a discussion with Lithodid Man, he mentioned using viral elements as a proof of evolution that creationists don't really say much about.In my viral genetics lecture yesterday, we learnt that while 3% of the human genome is open-reading frame, there is about 8% of it which are retroviral elements, some of which can be found in chimpanzees as well.So, I think this is up there for the "Most convincing evidence award". The creationists don't appear to have any real response to this, and I can't see it mentioned on AiG, the ICR etc.So what do you think? Good evidence, or is it too confusing for the creationists, or not powerful enough evidence of common descent?

---

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!

Heh, evolution didn't make sense to me either, and I was always good at science too. But, the major flaws aren't really that major when you look closely (or broadly, depending on the flaw).Hey, if you want, feel free to come into the chatroom (top right, where it says 'Chat') when I (or many of the other members who have posted in this thread) are in it or send me an email.I've always been good at explaining things (that's why I contribute to the EvoWiki). Perhaps I can explain evolution to you in a way that makes sense (or maybe you can teach me about these flaws - you never know...)Edited by Doddy, : spelling

---

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'm happy that my thread is alive again, but I'm not happy about the topic being discussed. The implications of evolutionary theory regarding extraterrestrial life is completely off topic here.As for endogenous retroviruses, that is perfectly acceptable, and I encourage this line of discussion (provided it sticks with the science). Also, seeing as this is a thread about how to explain evolutionary theory, I would like to see explanations to be as clear and simple to understand as possible.Otherwise, someone will misunderstand, post something and then their error will be pointed out by others, and they will be made to feel like an idiot. This can't happen, or the creationists will feel threatened and not want to stay around and discuss things.

---

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

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Let me see if I can explain virology in some simple terms, using the paragraph of IaJ as a base.Viruses are parasitic DNA or RNA. They are essentially a rogue genome without a cell. Unfortunately for them, RNA and DNA are unstable, and so they require something to coat their genome to prevent it from breaking while out in the wild. This coating is called the capsid, and can be surrounded by more coatings too. In order to make a capsid, as viruses don't have any organelles to make proteins, they need to hijack some other cell. There are many ways they can do this, and integrative retroviruses use the method of inserting a DNA copy of their RNA into the host genome, so that the host cell will make capsid proteins just as it makes its own proteins. This isn't very common among viruses. The host will have an immune response to the virus (change its cell's receptors to prevent the virus from attaching, or attack the viral capsid proteins). Thus, it is unlikely that a virus could get past the immune system of more than one sort of organism with a single genome (killing two birds with one stone is really hard to do). So generally, viruses have a specific species that they attack.For example, HIV is a retrovirus that only attacks humans. It is a form of an SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses). There are others that attack other species, such as SIV_cpz which attacks chimpanzees. No ape, except for humans, can get HIV.However, viruses can mutate to attack different species, but then it is no longer the same strain of the virus. Because this adaptation will require different capsid proteins (to bypass the immune responses), it will require the genes for those proteins to be different too. This will result in a different genotype for the virus. So, what are the implications for our differing opinions. You can either show me a virus that can affect both humans and chimps, or make an appeal to a past virus that could affect both humans and chimps. However, if you make such an appeal to the past, you must provide evidence, or you will be doing the very thing that you believe evolutionists are doing - making conclusions without the evidence to support it.Edited by Doddy, : quote boxEdited by Doddy, : why didn't that quote box work?Edited by Admin, : Adjust image width.

---

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

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Ok, you can do that if you want. But that doesn't help you, as clearly you think that humans and chimps are different kinds, and so instead of showing a cross-species retrovirus, you must show a cross-kind one. Actually, that categorizing was created by Carolus Linnaeus some 100 years before Darwin. It was also he who put humans into the primate grouping. I don't know that most of the baraminologists (those who study created kinds) would agree that an ape and a zebra are in the same kind, if that's what you are in fact saying.Also, care to give me an example of a retrovirus that affects both those animals, or any other cross-kind interaction? Never mind the fact that influenza is a Class V (-ve single-strand RNA virus) rather than a retrovirus (Class VI), so thus will not integrate into the genome. It is also key to realise that H5N1, if it does reach the ability to spread from human to human, will lose its ability to spread effectively within birds, as those viruses that spread throughout the human population will not likely be those that can spread throughout birds. Humans and birds have similar, but different, galactose receptor proteins - hence why it hasn't spread to humans already. Firstly, you may need to rephrase the word 'elevation', as you could get into the same trouble as you did with "internally derived factor" in another thread. Do you mean speciation?Also, generally the virus can't survive for that long in the genome, as it will eventually suffer a mutation that inactivates it or something similar. The genes will still be there, just turned off or broken in a key area. But you are also right that the genes introduced by the retrovirus may be incorporated into the host genome and used - there is thought now that placenta may have evolved this way. Most viruses do not kill, as that would prevent further transmission of the virus. Don't bite the hand that feeds (or reproduces) you.As for the rest of what you just say here, I'm not sure I understand it. Do you mean to say that the retrovirus is taking DNA from one organism to another? If so, let it be known that this is a rare occurrence, and not needed. I'm not sure I understand. Could you try to use the language of science, so that I can better see what you are trying to show me? I'm trying to teach, and this will be difficult if you don't understand my language and I don't understand yours.Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.Edited by Doddy, : spelling

---

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

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!