Evidence:: Evolution && Intelligent Design?

Question

Can I get a list the evidence for each, please?

Intelligent Designists:
Please do not use Bible/Koran/Torah/etc. verses/excerpts, or lines like "life is so complex, it MUST have been god's doing". Hearsay and leapt-to conclusions are not evidence.

Evolutionists:
Please do not use the illogical nature of the Bible/etc to disprove creationism to, in turn, prove your point. Disproving someone else’s case does NOT, in turn, PROVE yours.

At any rate I’m not interested in “proof” at the moment; just the evidence on both, excluding what I mentioned above. If you can give examples from both, that’d be great.


Again: NO PROOF NECESSARY!

EVIDENCE ONLY PLEASE

Answer 1

There's a lot more evidence for evolution than I can list here, so this is a very partial list, but here goes...

1. Vestigial structures

One example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.

Another vestigial structure is the 5th pharyngeal pouch. Pharyngeal pouches are structures that arise during early embryonic development. They form the gills in fish. In humans, the make the bones of the inner ears, and a couple other things. In some species, they make the lower jaw, among other things. Anyhow, all species have them. All species have exactly six. In humans, the 5th one is quite small and doesn't do anything, but it is there, and then disappears. Developmental biologists agree, it has no function in humans.

2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.

Creationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution. This is true. However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.

3. The fossil record.

Although the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species. There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

In vertebrates, there are two main types of jaw bones. One arises from one of the pharyngeal pouches (I don't remember which one), and the other arises de novo at some point during development. In adult animals, the two types are distinguished by the type of joint that connects the upper and lower jaw bones. All existent species of vertebrate have either one or the other. However, there's actually an extinct species that has jaws with two joints, one of each type.

4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).

I want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).

There are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).

5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.

Creationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument. Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin. It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.

Any developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to cat embryos, but all three develop similar structures in the early stages of development. The early embryos of humans, chimps, and cats are similar to each other but quite different from, say, a sea urchin embryo. This is based on photographs of actual embryos taken by respectable scientists, NOT on Haeckel's drawings.

I find it rather funny that creationists try to argue that because one scientist was a fraud we should disregard all of developmental biology.

6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.

The main point here is that recent work has shown that the extent of genetic divergence among species is consistent with the expected separation based on the fossil record and morphological evidence. This supports the conclusions drawn from the other evidence.

Genetic analysis often reveals remnants of a gene that is functional in one species but not another (i.e. a mutation occurred that made the gene non-functional, but most of the sequence is still intact). Why would God have created non-functional sequences that are extremely similar to functional genes found in related species?

Also, non-coding regions of DNA show degrees of similarity that are consistent with the expected degree of evolutionary divergence. I understand how you could argue that God was essentially working form a common genetic template for all species, but why change the non-coding regions? These differences result from mutations that do not affect the phenotype of the species in any way but accumulate over time. Non-coding regions show sequences that are conserved with changes, and the number of changes is consistent with the number of mutations that would be expected to have occurred since the approximate time of existence of most recent common ancestor.

7. Homologous structures.

Homologous structures are structures that typically have similar morphological features and, often, similar functions, and are the result of evolutionary change of a single structure present in the most recent common ancestor of the two species. A homoplastic structure is one that may have a similar function and superficial appearance to another structure but is the result of convergent evolution (i.e. it was not present in the most recent common ancestry).

The most obvious examples of homoplastic structures are things like a human's hand and a gorilla's hand. A more subtle example is the human hand and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve different functions, their bone structures are nearly identical. This is because the bat wing is a modified mammalian forelimb. In other word, the most recent common ancestor of the human and the bat was a mammal that had a forelimb with a bone structure similar to that of the modern human hand and other mammalian forelimbs. In humans this forelimb became the hand. In bats it became the wing.

An interesting example of homoplastic structures is the bird wing and the bat wing. Although the two structures clearly serve similar functions (i.e. flying), they are anatomically quite different. They have quite different bone structures and operate according to different mechanical mechanisms. In fact, the bat wing is structurally more similar to human hand than the bird wing. Incidentally, the bird and bat wings are homoplastic as wings but homologous as forelimbs.

That is just one example. The animal kingdom is littered with examples of structures that serve different functions but have extremely similar morphological traits, and structures that serve similar functions but show clear evidence of distinct evolutionary origin.

8. Many cellular and biochemical processes are conserved in a variety of species.

The point here is that virtually all cells utilize similar mechanisms of DNA replication and protein synthesis, share certain respiration pathways, and other biochemical processes. Related species show more similarities. For example, all plants are capable of photosynthesis, and utilize a virtually identical biochemical pathway to accomplish this. If you study cell biology you will find numerous examples of pathways that are common to different types of cells. I'm not going to go into this more here as it requires considerable background in cell biology. However, these biochemical similarities support they theory that all cells share a common ancestor.

9. Vestigial biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).

These are similar to vestigial structures at the cellular level. The specific example I mentioned is the light-sensitive behavior of pancreatic cells. Basically, the pancreas is located inside the body and will never be exposed to light. However, pancreatic cells grown in vitro (i.e. in a Petri dish, test tube, etc.) demonstrate light-sensitive activation of biochemical pathways similar to that seen in the cells that form the retina. There is no reason for this behavior unless this pathway is a remnant (i.e. a vestigial pathway) of a pathway present in an ancestral cell that did have come in contact with light.

There are many other examples of vestigial biochemical pathways. Like vestigial structures, their existence is easily explained by evolution but makes no sense in the context of creationism or "intelligent design."

Answer 2

The choices are Intelligent design OR Evolution, Intelligent design would of course have us believe that some mythical Intelligent being crafted all we see from clay vs evolution which shows clearly how we and all living creatures continually evolve to better adapt to local conditions for increased survivability.

Answer 3

Intelligent design: I don't think there's any hard evidence that can prove that God exists other than those arguments you'd rather not hear.

Evolution: The fossil record goes back millions of years and shows a gradual evolution of species. Sediment rock, glaciers and magnetic reversals show the earth is older than 7000 years. Vestiges and appendages in humans and animals like the whale and snake are signs of evolution. So is symbiosis. A modern day example of evolution is the SARS virus. It evolved very quickly to become viable in humans. Evolution is a reality.

I believe in God and I believe that God could have used evolution as a tool.

Answer 4

You could list many things as evidence for evolution:
- genetic similarities between all life forms on earth
- the fact that every creature has rudiments of far ancestors in it which are basically useless for its present existence (e. g. appendix)
- the enormous amount of fossils, and the fact that obviously many species on earth have become extinct, many of them hundreds of millions of years ago
- the fact that certain rather easy and helpful inventions were never made by nature (like wheels)
- the fact that evolution still happens (like rats becoming resistant to rat poison, plants emerging on industrial wastelands ...)
and so on, any scientist may add his own list.

But I think the main point for evolution is that its principle is basically a tautology. The principle of evolution is: whatever is equipped better for survival and reproduction, has a greater chance for survival and reproduction. This principle is so obvious and self-evident, who could ask for more?

Answer 5

Because of my imperfections and foibles and follies I cannot assume that I was "Intelligently designed" . If I were I would be able to scratch my back with my own hands. Therefore I cannot answer your question because it is self evident.

Answer 6

i have tried to put them in some sort of order.
evidence for evolution, the talkorigins link contains a link to criticism of the evidence.
the often cited problem of speciation.
the predictive power of evolutionary theory.
and evolution in action, antibiotic resistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125683.000-editorial-a-truly-intelligent-use-of-evolution.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
and in case that is not enough.
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=btfp-web&tab=&p=%22evidence+for+evolution%22&btn=Search

Answer 7

Every Sunday, I get the urge to sit in a tree and eat a banana. Therefore, my ancestors must have been monkeys.

Answer 8

there is irreducible complexity.
a mouse trap has 5 main parts. The presence of all 5 is necessary for it to function, if it is missing ONLY one part it is useless & without any good or function. The human body for one(like all creatures) has any number of these, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be developed step by step. And i'll point out aswell richard dawkins uses a straw man argument when (pretending to be)dealing with his new book that 'we can't think of how evolution could have made something so it can't have happened' is what we are saying which we are not it is IMPOSSIBLE not that a way can't be thought of, just as it is impossible for the mouse trap to be any good as a mouse trap until it has all 5 main components.

A main point i'd like ot make though is for you to be very aware of where assumptions are in everything you read. Eg dating of anything(except where there is a witness) is always based on some assumption eg if something is dated as a million years old it has to take as a given the enviroment it was in (as this can dramatically effect the rate of decay) its starting state(carbon 14 dating as an example for both of these), in like fashion if a creationist dates something younger they are also assuming certain climatic conditions and circumstances. Neither can claim it as proof. they can use it as evidence, albeit evidence ASSUMING so and so... is true.

There are many things(on both sides) which can be addressed but so you won't get a comprehensive list on this site.
Another point i'll make though is to point out that the statemnet 'energy can create life' etc and the like decieving also. Eg america added energy to nagasaki but it didn't do anything productive. Energy needs a complex system for it to be utilised (at least this is all has EVER been observed) eg chlorophyll for photosynthesis.
Last of all i'd like to point out science takes place in what can be observed and tested(rocket science etc, they observe & test gravity, heat etc in order to build whats necessary) evolution is not something observed or tested so it is not a science by the true definition. They employ science when you measure carbon etc(not evoluition) but that is the present when one assumes something and applies it to whatever you've just added idea's(not science).

You should check out www.answersingenesis.org it has both scientific things and those related to bible etc, however they're distinguished so you can pick and choose. They have very good purely science related info/articles etc. I would also be aware of PBS they have been known to use since disproven evidence etc in their shows justify 'the point' its making.

also it depends which evolution. theres 6, including formation of stars, elements, aswell as macro evolution and microevolution. However microevolution is the only one ever seen and this is only change, its never been seen to develop in the sense of growth on info, only loss of info and variation between that which is already present(dubious that teh word evoluiton should be used as part of the noun) but don't get fooled by someone trying to take that to prove all the other 5 types(elements, planets etc), it makes no sense but can be cleverly employed as such sometimes.

all the best

sorry i'll have to add this after seeing some of the other answers

appendix is not a vestigal organ- its used as a safeguard to prevent bad bacteria in lower intestine getting back to smaller intestine. neither are the (so called)'hip' bones in a whale(they are used in sex, this is seen and proven, they play an important role)

also to say that something is useless because you can't understand a use for it is real arrogance.

Similarity does in no way prove anything. A car has similarities with a plane. one didn't produce the other. They had a common designer. Its called economy of design.

a virus adapting is not evolution. i'll give an example ...In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors’ definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: “Then did they really observe evolution?” The answer would be: “No!”
Equivocation is the logical fallacy of changing the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument. (taken from www.answersingenesis.org)

in this case as with many, genetic info is corrupted/lost etc but what it is related to may be an advantage in a certain situation BUT there is a loss of info. This is natural selection(not evolution, evolutionist try and imply the 2 are one when really darwin was only using natural selection as a proposed vehicle which would make (macro)evolution possible) which can be found documented as far back a benjamin franklin (a creationist who never thought otherwise) on his studies on human populations.

Its like if a car has rev limiter to stop you blowing the engine, should it fail in a car but that helps it do a faster lap than its competitors. If the formula 1 manufacturers followed the same logic as applied to viruses etc they would say 'oh our car is evolving lets see how much are car improves!'. The mistake is in every other circumstance(ie finishing the race) it is a downgrade. The engine will be damaged. Should such a process continue it will be left with many important parts missing. While the other cars will win in the long run and will be DEVELOPED further. ie if the other take the correct attitude they will probably ADD parts through time taken to intelligently design & apply them according to the needs present. Eg when computer assisted breaking was added & wings on the front and back for Formula 1's etc.

Answer 9

Instead of trying to write it all out in my own fumbling, inadequate words, I'll let these sites explain it:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/hominid.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Answer 10

Jesus personality. He's Love. Psalms or Proverbs 8 or 9 ,I'm not quite sure. Jesus calls himself the Master Craftsman at the Fathers side in the beginning. Here is my answer the tiger has three black spots two on his ears one on his tail so her cub wont get lost. a lizards tail pops of and the lizard remains paralyzed while the tail bounces around like a lure, and three a seed falls from a tree and gently falls to the ground spinning like a helicopter
The list goes on and on. I no Jesus personality.

Answer 11

You are an Agnostic. God nor I could not prove a single thing to you...I personally lean towards a scientific explanation for life, and it would take forever to give you "proof" of it's validity...literally