A question about evolution?

Question

Some creationists have told me that common structures in almost all animals, such as eyes, lungs, heart(s), kidneys, etc., are proof of a common creator. As an evolutionist, how do I respond to this?

Answer 1

Well, tell them that those structures have evolved several distinct times and distinct ways, including eyes nine times. It sertainly is not direct proff of any kind of creation, and it is more supportive of common shared lineages.

Look, god could make everyone 100 feet tall covered in purple pokadots, right? It's god, it can do whatever it wants because it is magic or devine or whatever.

Tell them every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.

Evolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.

There is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

There are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.

Let me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

Go to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.

Answer 2

All animals do not share these common structures. Such is the diversity of the animal kingdom.

And, some animals like cave fish, cave crickets, actually lose their eyes evolutionally because they do not and cannot use them.

I believe in a master creating force which governs the entirety of the universe, and God is a good name for it.

Everything that exists might be said to eminate from this creative power.

But the Creationists are not about this. They are trying to defend
what they believe to be the correctness -to the letter- of the Bible.
Their whole faith and idealogy hinges on the Bible being totally perfect, correct, true, error free. And, they will go to any extent to try to justify their position.

Their position absolutely falls apart if there is even one error in the Bible. (and there are some).

It would not be inconsistent, in my thinking, for God to work by evolutionary forces.

Answer 3

Those same items that that those creationists have told you were proof of a common creator really are that proof of a common ancestor. The real theory behind this is related to homologous structures. This is the concept that that the wing of a bat, the leg of a horse, the arm of alligator, as well as the arm of a human all have very similar internal structures (ie the amount of bones and similarites in layout) but serve very different purposes (the bat flies, the norse gallops, the alligator walks, the human uses it to grab and to hold unto things). This shows the evolution of these very different creatures all from some common ancestor that posessed this same internal layout. Another response could also be related to vestigial structures. This are structures within the body of various animals that no longer serve the same purpose it did on one of their ancestors, and for this reason have began to skrink and disappear through generations of reproduction. Examples are wisdom teeth and coccyx (tailbone) in a human. Whales also have a vestgial structure of a hind leg hidden deep within their body of their past land dwelling ancestor.

Answer 4

These structures are so far back in the evolutionary chain that their argument is somewhat akin to saying flour can be found in biscuits, French sauces, bunt cake, fish batter, wallpaper paste and Mr.Kiplings Bakewell Tarts, so that proves flour 'created' all these things!

Creationism was an interesting "anomaly", but the biggest favor you can do any creationist is to prove that agnosticism is the only provably supportable theological position; every other position requires suspension of disbelief, a leap of faith, or sheer pigheadedness. If creationists could step back for a moment, we might all be able to move forward!

Answer 5

all of those organs, are more efficient at their jobs than many other structures that could have evolved.

ask those creationists, to figure out another structure in nature that would be as efficient as sight, as an eye, or as efficient in breathing as a lung!
ask them how blood would move though a creature without a heart!
man labelled these structures, not a god!
they just performed a purpose for the organims that is a common need in all organisms.
cells need to eat, so hearts are need to circulate nutrients
an organisms needs to see to hunt, uness they hunt in darkness, so they need eyes.
larger organisms need increased surface area for oxygen intake than smaller animals, that is why insects don't have lungs.

and a lawyer, notorious for spinning truth, arging with a scientist!?? LOL!

Answer 6

You touched on homology--that is the similarity of structures among animals. A scientist named Tim Bera, who was an ardent supporter of Evolution, shouted this is proof of evolution. A lawyer said this is proof of Bera's blunder. The lawyer said a 2005 Corvete will not evolve into a 2006 corvete. An outside designer needs to do it.

Oh by the way my jacket which is marked "Nike" is made of the same material as my "nike" pants. Is it logical to say that my jacked Evolved and became my pants? Figure that out.

Answer 7

don't feel bad. this has stumped many prestigious college biology professors, too.

''the eye has been the symbol and archetype of Darwin's dilemma. since the eye is of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution, when the variations had no possible survival value? no single variation, indeed no single part being of any use without every other and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end, or purpose of the organ.''
-Gertrude Himmelfarb

and then the evolutionist will say ''the horseshoe crab has primitive eyes, but eyes nonetheless'' and then the creationist will ask ''but where are all of the transitional fossils that go from horseshoe crab to all the other animals with eyes?''

Answer 8

The mammalian kidney is embryologically derived from different tissue and is histologically distinct from the reptilian kidney. The octopus eye has a similar globe structure, but is "wired" very differently.

Answer 9

Eyes, lungs, kidneys, ets were created in an early stage of evolution. Before the species went their different evolutionary paths. Besides, the eyes of a beatle are very different from the eyes of a human, which are very different from the eyes of a reptile.

Answer 10

Ask them what of the ones that don't share common structures?
I've yet to see facial features on a sea cucumber or star fish, clam, worms, and what the heck is up with jellyfish anyway?