If I made something that might have evolved how would you tell the difference?

Question

If God made the world in 6 days and it would have come to that state itself through many years of evolution how would we know the difference? Even if evolution were true it does not mean that an all powerful being did not make the world in the way described by the bible.

Interesting that the science buffs can't understand that no matter the science the spew into the answers I can still reply, "Well I faked that too." See I meant, "What if I made something that could have just as easily evolved into that state over a longer peoriod of time had I not made it?" The reason why God might do something like this is He did not want to wait billions of years for creation to occur or He did it to test our faith in Him. And the bible is a little more trustworthy than a mythology book someone made up the other day.

Answer 1

I would look for a change in gene frequency over successive generations.

Definition: Evolution: A change in gene frequency over successive generations.

Yes, evolution does occur. It can be measured. It happens in lots of different natural populations, and in humans. The debate has never been about whether or not evolution occurs. It does. The debate is about whether new species have arisen by millions of years of evolution, or by the creation act of a deity as written in the Bible or as written in the various creation stories of hundreds (at least) of other cultures worldwide.

A better wording for your question might be: How might the evidence for evolution disprove my belief that God made me in the way that is described in the Bible?

The answer is, it can't. Belief in God can't be disproved by evidence, because God can fake any kind of evidence He wants. That means you can happily ignore any and all scientific evidence if it calls into question your belief in God. At least, you can if you live in a nation that allows freedom of religion.

Answer 2

Nope. The bible isnt a science book. But since God created the world then the study of science doesnt disprove the creator.

Answer 3

The bible is a book written by people who thought the earth was flat. Writing in one book does not make anything written therein true.

I'm pretty sure if I wrote a book about mythical beings and told you it was all true, you would be skeptical. You should also be skeptical about what is written in the bible and look for some proof that is totally separate from any biblical writings.

Answer 4

The way you would tell would be to look in the genes ... the DNA.

In exactly the same way that you can tell if two people are related, and by how much, by looking at their DNA, we can do the same with any two species of lifeform on the planet (two primates, or two mammals, or two animals, or two plants, or even between any animal and any plant).

Some creationists might object that God may have just created two species with similarities and so of course they would have have genetic similarities. (E.g. both chimps and humans have insulin, so of course they would both have the genes for insulin.) But this misses the point, in three big ways.

First, it isn't just the DNA that codes for useful things (like insulin), but also a lot of DNA that doesn't have any function at all. This is called "junk DNA" or "dormant DNA" because it codes for known functions that are not expressed (like the way gill slits apear in human and chimp embryos, but disappears by the time the fetus develops). There is absolutely no reason God would make all this junk or dormant DNA identical between two species.

Second, it isn't just a similarity, but the *letter-by-letter* matches and mismatches. There are many, many different variations on the insulin molecule in nature ... changes in a few letters here or there in that very long insulin molecule (or the gene that codes for that molecule). Some of these produce slightly different function, some don't (they're just harmless "typos"). It's by comparing human, chimp, and gorilla insulin, we can see that human insulin is more letter-by-letter identical with chimp insulin than gorilla insulin.

Third, it's not just a single similaritity between two species, but hundreds of similarities between many species. It's not just a commonality in insulin between humans, chimps, but between humans, chimps, gorillas, howler monkeys, etc. But the same also is true of the hemoglobin molecule in the blood. Or the eye pigment molecules in the eyes. All of these show a closer human relationship to the chimp than to the gorilla, and humans and chimps are both closer to the gorilla than the howler monkey. And so on. This degree of similarity paints a huge picture, and works everywhere in life, not just from the human point of view.

If you put all of these things together, this paints as clear a picture of relationship by common ancestry (and how many generations back this goes for any two species), as it can paint a clear picture of common ancestry between two humans (and how many generations back this ancestry goes for the two humans).

Now you can, of course, conclude that God still created all these species separately, but inserted all this evidence of common ancestry into their DNA. But then you'd have to explain why God went to such trouble to create such an elaborate deceit.

Answer 5

check the gene/protein sequence
multiple sequence alignment
build phylogenetic tree

Answer 6

It looks nothing like before