Atheists: What are the hard core facts of evolution?

Answer 1

I don't think it is a question only for atheists. Facts discovered by science are the same for everyone, and no one should be mad at you for asking a simple question.

I think I understand what you mean by hard core facts so I offer these off the top of my head:

1. The more we dig the more we find the remains of ancient animals that no longer walk the Earth.
2. In the time of man we can observe little adaptive changes take place in successive generations of plants or animals.
3. We observe great diversity in species which can serve as a resource for natural selection to choose which variation is most suited to the current environment. This may be God's mechanism for survival of species; who can say it isn't?
4. A DNA comparison of man and ape appears to show not that man came from ape (as would be impossible since it shows we both evolved away from another point) but that man and ape have a common ancestor.
5. The fossil record supports the sub-theory of "punctuated equilibrium where great bursts of change alternated with a settling in.

If I may depart from the hard core facts now, this last item can be argued as a kind of evolution guided by God as we have no other way of explaining it. What it suggests to me is that the dust, dirt or clay used by God to create man could have been a precursor to man who was a nonhuman animal to begin with. However distasteful that sounds, I find it one way to reconcile the facts with a belief in the God of the bible.

The real problem is that there were all these other human-like creatures with advanced qualities such as Neanderthals who buried their dead, complete with ceremonies, and they may have believed in God too. Maybe they "led" to us or maybe they were dead ends and the humans we are today were separately created from nothing as a literal interpretation of the bible seems to tell us. But that would make those other creatures experiments. If so, and if God created them all, that makes Him still tremendously powerful beyond our reckoning but less than omnipotent. If that implies anything I don't know.

I hope this helps you think about the facts. Is some of the above evidence of something we would call evolution? I think you would have to call it at least some form of change to suit the environment whether it be guided or not. I think it would have to mean the bible cannot be taken completely literally or leaves out part of the story, but I don't see it as being mutually exclusive of faith.

Answer 2

Hard core? Umm is science being compared to the generation X commercials where they say awesome,rad, or extreme all the time?

Evolution is a theory what part of that is hard to understand?

----We put faith in what is the most likely explanation given the current data at the time.----(in response to a below comment) Science is a living changing thing there is no definitive answer to anything all things must be questioned this is the scientific way, we dont just say oh i believe this cause a 2000 year old book says to,we investigate learn judge and debate the best logical answer.

Answer 3

Define "hard core fact". That is never used in science. That is the difference between religion and science, science can take in new data and assimilate it. We may find out tomorrow that gravity is an illusion, who can say?

Stephen Jay Gould:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Answer 4

Why are you pointing this question at atheists?

It's not like evolution is our dogma. Most scientists and a good number of regular people of all religions and Atheism accept the scientific theory of evolution.

Answer 5

The word is "evidences". And Evolution is a fact because there is literally mountains of evidence for it. I cannot list them all. You'll just have to read a book on the subject - I suggest reading one by Richard Dawkins.

BTW: Not all atheists believe in Evolution and not all theists disbelieve in it.

Answer 6

The site below is a very good place to start. Click on "Beginners", especially if you don't have a lot of background in biology.

For a more in depth summary, try the Wikipedia article on Evolution, but it takes more scientific background to understand properly.

Good luck! It's worth getting your head around.

Answer 7

So far, there aren't any -- evolution is still just a theory.

I'm not sure why atheists -- the self-described "champions of science" that they say they are -- revere the theory of evolution almost to the point of worship.

It's not very "scientific" to put so much faith in an idea that is still just a theory, and hasn't been proven.

.

Answer 8

In scientific words, there is not any actuality approximately something ever, so any coherent theory is talked approximately as a theory. based on the linguistic use, 'information' could be reported, yet those are actually not any further specific than the rest. So do not think that a 'certainty' is ever set in stone, and that i might say generally scientists do not use it as we'd in basic parlance. Linguistically, 'certainty' is nomally use to talk with one specific piece of tips, mutually as a theory is mostly a chain of appropriate descriptions, regularly with a formalised formulaic representation. As for creationistm, that may not taken in any respect heavily in any scientific experience, as so a strategies there are actually not any information-based creationist papers that have been by using peer-assessment, the traditional approach by technique of which any hypothesis can grow to be a properly-time-honored theory. There are some hypothetical ones, yet it is all. As such, creationism has approximately 0 presence in terms of properly-time-honored theories approximately how existence has have been given to the place that is, mutually as evolutionist techniques have an excellent number of information-based backing that have made it by using the approach. this could be in comparison to the quantity of properly-time-honored theories describing gravity, vs 0 flat-earth ones. So that is in line with risk not dazzling that people who propose creationist techniques as by some means 'equivalent' to evolution or deserving as a lot credence are, properly, laughed at. purely as any flat-earthers may be. What might this say with regards to the intelligence of proponents? relies upon who's judging, yet whilst intelligence is a level of the skill to reason, then aspersions would be forged. my own feeling is that lots of people who're nevertheless extremely smart can nevertheless be extremely swayed by technique of emotion, and veer faraway from rationalism. If somebody keeps claiming something even with a loss of information, then we can easily be suspicious approximately their skill to be rational, and in line with risk intelligence. this might all substitute if actual creationist theories, using information, have been to be publish for peer assessment, and not grow to be incorrect. so a strategies, even with the shown fact that, that has not occurred. of direction, in case you think of i'm at the back of the circumstances and creationism has emerged as a actual technological information, please be happy to point me to those peer-reviewed guides....

Answer 9

Julia Encarnacion says that evolution is just a theory. People who say this don't know what a scientific theory is. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is "just a theory" but I know of no physicist that doubts it. Just because the word "theory" is used doesn't mean that it should be doubted.

Answer 10

Yeah, if you have the next few decades free, then I am sure a couple of teachers would step up to the plate and teach you.

Look into natural selection, fossilization, adaptation, survival of the fittest, environmental influence, etc. that will at least get you started on your journey.