Where could I get the scientific proof that evolution is real and creationism is not?

Question

I need reliable scientific proof about the evolution process, and how we and the universe came to be, and by that same token, some information to dispell creationism.

Yeah, this is one of those evolution/creationism debates that I have gotten myself into with a hard-core religious person. I am atheist by the way.

While I respect the religion of others, I will most certainly defend evolution against creationism anyday.

I have done my research, but am looking for additional information to present to the person I am debating with.

Answer 1

Qwerty - love the name and the ease of logging in ;)

I have been in a similar debate for the last 30 years with my parents who are religious. I am an atheist and went to grad school to seek the answer to this, among other questions. Many of the above answers provide substance to answer your question. I think the most compelling evidence is the molecular (DNA) evidence which provides absolutely irrefutable evidence that different species are related by descent. Don't you find it remarkable that Darwin postulated his theory based on morphology and not a shred of molecular data, but the entirety of the molecular data which has come to light with the advent of new technology supports Darwinian evolution?

I do. Familiarize yourself with this data. There are genes - cytochrome C - conserved over a billion years that ALL organisms relying on mitochondria (and some that don't) still carry. Chimps and humans share 98.5% of their chromosomal DNA sequence. Is it just coincidence that 3 billion bases in the genome of chimps and humans are 98.5% identical?

Also, on things like the fossil record and the so called "missing link", remind your friend of the odds of something becoming fossilized and the amount of time people have been looking for fossils. Also ask why NO fossils have been found to DISPROVE evolutionary theory? I find it ironic that creationists stress the shortcomings of the fossil record when it suits their argument but NEVER credit the fact that the record has produced NO evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory.

Also, those who call evolution "just a theory" need to be reminded that continental drift, special relativity and many other theories are accepted as fact by the scientific community.

The sophisticated creationists like Francis Collins claim that God originally created the earth and evolution now takes place. This stance accepts all the scientific evidence and relegates God to only creator status. This is the stance of a desperate creationist in my opinion. Obviously substantial evidence exists to debunk all other roles for God so lets give Him a role that can't be disproven without time travel.

Finally, I would try this exercise with your friend; Challenge him/ her with the question; "What WOULD convince you to accept evolution? If they say "nothing" then they aren't open-minded or rational on the topic. If they say "finding the missing link" or something else then at least they would entertain the possibility. Be prepared to answer the converse question...

Creation of the universe is a different topic and much less supported by fact.

Good luck. I used to dread getting in these discussions but lately I enjoy them as long as the person is reasonable...

Answer 2

There is no need to defend evolution as the facts are there. The "EXACT QUESTION" you are debating is very important. Attack creationism, it is myth supportted soley by the Bible. A book written 2000 years ago written,edited, deleted,translated by "MEN". The Bible is not the work of god , but the work of "Men"with no factual or scientific support.
In the debate question any sceintific references in the Bible towards creationism. Ask him or them to cite the authors, references,etc. For example, if your opponet saids "Mark as author from the bible, you can say that Mark is not the author, the writings have been edited, translated, condensed , expanded. The last version of the bible was the King James Version. "Version"could be uesd in the debate also. ( you will have scientific references for evoluton)
You can throw in stuff, like the church said the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe.
Most of the creationist arguement I've seen on TV centres on "why can't science explain why this has happened or hasn't happened"
It is impossile for creationist to beleive that the Bible is irrelivant in a argurment, that it has no status. The Bible is the only "real" source the creationists have, if you can convince people that as a unscientific book it demands no more respect then any other world religions "Book" These books have just as much status as the Bible( except in the creationists mind) and have contrary creationists views from the Bible.
Remember your opponet will try to keep the Bible out and try to centre his arguments on the " what science hasnt explained yet"
You need to centre on creationism coming from the Bible. The Bible has no scientific basis.
P.S Its better to be Agnostic instead of Atheist. Agnostics beleive there is a God, but, you will never know him. Something must of started everything a quadtrillion years ago. Its kind of like talkin about the weather. Its the thing you talk about the most........but its the thing you can do nothing about

Answer 3

Well, you could always take a course at a respectable University, preferably one whose name does not include the words: Saint, Chapel, Holy, Old, or Bible. Or, if you're strapped for cash, just try to find a respectable University that even has creationism as a course in it's curriculum and compare it to the number of Universities that teach Evolution. Which ever you find the most of is the one that the scientific community accepts as true. If you accept that your computer can display the words you typed to make this question and the responses people posted to it, then you accept that the scientific community has a pretty good idea of what it's doing.

Answer 4

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Fossil Records
- oldest fossils show the most dissmiliar organisms to today's species
- the succession of fossils actually SHOWS evolution taking place, for example, prokaryotes (bacteria, small organisms usually unicellular) should be the ancestors of all life, and as predicted the most ancient fossils are that of prokaryotes
- chronological appearance of different organisms is consistent, for example fish predate amphibians who predate reptiles who predate mammals
- transitonal fossils - show traits of two separate groups merged together (like archaepteryx - half reptile/half bird), so this is where new groups were formed

Creationism would predict that ALL species such as mammals, reptiles and fishes appeared at the same time. But tangible fossil evidence shows the actual progression of life was over millions of years.

2. Anatomy of the species - the forelimbs of all mammals are constructed with the same skeletal elements, meaning they probably have come from a common ancestor. Also the vestigial organs (organs with NO real importance to the species) show things such as pelvis/leg bones in snakes that would have come from their walking ancestors. We would NOT expect this if snakes were just created out of the blue as creationism predicts.

3. Biochemistry - When we compare the DNA of species who are more closely related (how long ago they would branch off from an ancestor) their DNA is more alike than species who are more dissimilar (chimp's DNA is more like us than a chickens). If everything was just created...then how come species who shared a less ancient common ancestor are so alike at the molecular level? Evolution predicts this would occur, but creationism doesn't.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I tried to not get too specific. Also don't let the person dismiss evolution as "just a theory". Theories are based on FACTS. Historical evidence shows that species have evolved over time, the only thing "theoretical" is our explanition as to HOW they evolved (ie. natural selection).

Answer 5

Lets see then - ammo for evolution:

- Multiple drug resistant bacteria emerging after the antibiotic revolution, never before - bacteria are being pressured selectively to undergo evolution by natural selection, non resistant bacteria are eradicated leaving those individuals with resistance to survive, reproduce and pass on their advantageous genes to the next generation - survival of the fittest, even if it is one in a billion, that one individual can produce millions of offspring - evolution over a small timescale which is killing people across the world.

- The pentadactyl limb, all mammals share this analogous structure, (our arm structure), direct proof that mammals are all related and share a very distant common ancestor, it is impossible for this to have occured by pure chance alone, hence all mammals must have evolved from one ancestor.

- DNA and RNA genomes found in every single organism, it cannot be coincidence that every single living thing, plant and animals all use DNA/RNA for the basis of their genetic information, hence all life on Earth must have stemmed from a single ancestor, the very first life forms which used these molecules for coding proteins and reproduction.

- The fossil record, showing clear changes in features over time, the increase in cranial volume of apes, the adaptation and change of the pentadactyl limb, the presence of vestigial organs found in fossils and modern day counterparts. No, the atoms in the fossils and the surrounding rocks cannot lie, their age is fixed based on the constant of decay within a sample - any geologist will agree that the Earth cannot be less than 4.7 billion years old.

- The appearance of modern day living fossils such as the Ginko tree and the coelocanth, these organisms have undergone only slight changes over the course of millions of years - direct proof of evolution - if an organism possesses features which allow them to adapt so well to an environment, then if the environment doesn't alter for millions of year, little natural selection and hence evolution can take place. We there are drastic changes in the environment over a long period of time there will be evolution.

- Evolution is not a theory in everyday terms (a hunch or guess), it is a SCIENTIFIC theory - it has undergone peer review, there is physical evidence, obsevational evidence and inferences pointing towards evolution being the sole underlying idea from which all life originated from, creationism has no hope in hell of supplying any of this.

Good luck.

Answer 6

Look up "endogenous retroviral elements" in primate mDNA, which conclusively shows common descent among primates. The quality of proof is greater than court DNA evidence which we send men to life imprisonment or death. The reason why this evidence isn't as publicized as it should be is because it's too hard for many people to understand. The basis of this evidence is that certain viruses can insert their own DNA into the host DNA. Most of the time when the host is infected in such a manner, it is not replicated. However in rare cases, the gamete is infected, so that with birth and successive generations the viral DNA is replicated. This leaves "tracks" in which geneticists can determine the family history of primates, and show conclusively that all primates are related by blood. It's now one of the best methods we have for determining primate family tree.

Answer 7

Just read some of Stephen Jay Gould's books concerning paleontology.
You will never convince a creationist of evolution. They have made up their minds the Bible is God's unerring word.
Even though the creation story has the sun, moon, and stars created after the earth was already here (and apparently has been here since the beginning of time), they will just say that the light created by God previously is a universal light. Crazy or what? They will deny fossils! They will say God caused hundreds of catastrophes in a few thousand years, which would have wiped humankind out hundreds of times. Did God create anew after each debacle?

Answer 8

You'll never win. Its a stupid debate. The evidence for the big-bang and evolution is overwhelming. Google Darwin, Oparin and Gamow. These are scientific topics. They are mechanisms to explain how things were transformed from a previous state. Not who did what. Evolution is not religion and never, ever will be. It is science.

Creationism is not science and never, ever will be. It is religion.

Science deals with that which can be demonstrated and reproduced (although you can't directly reproduce the evolution of man or the big-bang, which are serious problems for people who will not accept inference.)
Religion picks up where science leaves off.

Answer 9

Evolution is a scientific principle.
Creationism is a belief.
Science and belief are two totally different things that are not comparable at all.
To ask which is right and which is wrong, to try to choose one or the other, is like trying to choose between wine or a padlock.
Why is one related to the other?
They are not - except in the minds of ignorant, uneducated, fear-mongering people.

Creationism was invented in a time before humans understood that the sun was not the eye of a giant.

Answer 10

The fossil sequence depicting the evolution of whales is well documented and Wikipedia makes it easily accessible to laypersons, with lots of pictures. There are plenty of examples of transitional fossils, which creationists love to deny the existence of, and it shows that evolution is more like a branching tree than a ladder. It might help to show the creationist some of the evidence for whale evolution.