Which theory has more supportive evidence: Theory of Evolution or Theory of Creation?

Answer 1

Evidence for Creation:

1. The bible says so.

2. People believe it.

Evidence for Evolution:


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."


But I'll let you decide for yourself which the evidence supports.

Answer 2

Okay, I've answered a similar question in the past with a similar answer so here goes - the truth you seek, pal. Not long ago, Creationist Scientists who were working with some of the oldest rocks on earth (about 6000 years) stumbled on a suspicious talking serpent.

When questioned about which theory has more supportive evidence, the serpent lied as serpents always do by stating, "Evolution is a fact".

The serpent was quickly taken in for interrogation and after enduring several hours of effective, but humane, stress positions, it finally started telling the truth. Most of the interrogation session is classified, but I can tell you this. When asked again about which theory has more supportive evidence, the serpent said "Creationism - the earth is dang near 6000". Did you hear that, loser? Dang near 6000.

This is important news. Why does the liberal atheist media refuse to pick it up?

Answer 3

I think of it as the 2-God theory. Some people need a god that's responsible for every single event in their lives. He gives neat, easy explanations that warrant, or invite, no scrutiny, e.g., "That the way I did it." Most importantly, he has a manual where you can look up how everything works and happens. That God's manual was written by primitive desert dwelling scribes makes it all the more "real" for them. This I call the followers of the little god. Others cannot reconcile the vastness and complexity of the universe without some guiding hand or principle. They generally laugh at the idea that God would violate the science arising out of one of His greatest creations - human intellect. And of course they cannot take the aforementioned scribbling of the camel guys as literal scientific truth. They have no problem with evolution, or with any other branch of science - indeed some of these believers are great contributors to the various theories. These I call the followers of the great god. I am a non-believer. But I've never had a problem with the believers of the great god - not even on things theological. And they see no controversy at all. Quite the contrary, they see the greatness of their god reflected in those theories and negated by the literalists.

Answer 4

You're gonna get answers from both sides. Those who support the evolution side will say that there's a plethora of scientific evidence supporting the evolution theory, and the creationists will say that Genesis supports creationism.

Both evolution and creation are the same thing. Evolution is the process of creation.

Edit: I typed Exodus when I meant to type Genesis. I saw the mistake and changed it.

Answer 5

Like it or not the ONLY way HUMANS come about is that they are CREATED BY WILLFUL INTENT OF A MAN AND A WOMAN.

A woman alone cannot produce a child even though she has a womb.

A man can't either.

Babies, despite popular theories, don't grown on trees or come out of cabbage patches.

They HAVE to be CREATED by a man and woman.

They DO NOT EVOLVE out of a singularity that has always existed.

They DO NOT EVOLVE out of Monkeys or Apes. I've been to the zoo millions of times and I've never seen a baby human come from an Ape.

I can only assume this is some alternative Atheist tale because for some reason they take offense to the Stork tale.

Science CANNOT prove otherwise. NO ONE can prove otherwise.

THE FACTS STAND, it takes the WILLFULL EFFORTS of a MAN and a WOMAN to MANUFACTURE OR CREATE a human being.

The UNDISPUTABLE FACT is that new humans come from a woman's body started there by a man who helpes her create them.

Without this CREATION PROCESS we would become extinct.

Thus, HUMANS are CREATED and this CANNOT BE DISPUTED.

Life comes from the process of creation.

It certainly doesn't come from mixing two chemicals together.

Answer 6

There is no Theory of Creationism. It is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory.

Answer 7

There is evidence for both, but neither can be proved. The only thing I will add is if you can't start a theory or a race, you cannot finish it. You have to be able to explain it's beginning

Answer 8

Evolution is a theory.

Creation is a doctrine, and when contorted to become science never rises above hypothesis, since it makes no predictions that can be tested with the evidence that is not there.

Answer 9

The " Theory of Creation "has one serious flaw in it : In order for it to work ,it requires the evolution of God.

Answer 10

Neither.
Especially Creationism bunk.

Answer 11

Well the first one is a valid scientific theory that has tons of supporting evidence; the latter is just a crack pot hypothesis that has so much evidence against it it's not even funny any more.