Is there solid proof that we were evolved and not created?

Answer 1

In short, yes. That humans (and all other species on earth) evolved from single-celled organisms over the course of the last four billion years has been so thoroughly established that it is difficult even to choose which evidence to cite.

Among the simplest evidences are (I crib straight from my sources):
- The unity of life. The fact that all species on earth employ the same 22 amino acids out of over 309 naturally occurring, that all species store species-specific data using DNA composed of the same 4 nucleosides out of at least 102 naturally occurring, that in fact the genetic code is all but universal (and the only exceptions are simple variations) - all these are very strong evidence that every one of these species came from a common ancestor by some mechanism of evolution, including us.
- Historical artifacts. Think of the vestigial tailbone in humans, or the appendix. Of what value are these to us, who neither have tails nor eat plants requiring an appendix to process? Further, why should our eyes be formed with blood vessels coming out *in front*, blocking our vision? These facts, inexplicable in the case of explicit design, are unsurprising assuming evolution.

I could continue, but I would only confuse the both of us. Besides, I defy you to come up with a reasonable objection to the hypothesis of evolution which is not adequately dealt with somewhere in the TalkOrigins FAQ - accessible from the first source, below.

Edit: Thank you, Rev. Albert Einstein, for giving me so much material to demonstrate with. I will admit I had to move beyond TalkOrigins for some of the quotes, but quote-mining (the misleading usage of quotes - and your quotes are misleading, as I will demonstrate) is hardly *reasonable*, is it?

First, the Cambrian explosion. Also known as Creationist Claim CC300 on the TalkOrigins FAQ (source 3). There are many reasons why we might observe a large increase in the numbers of observed fossil forms at this time (note that I said a large increase, not a sudden appearance - many fossils have been found predating the Cambrian age); for example, the evolution of active predators may have encouraged the evolution of 'hard parts', which fossilize more easily. Several other plausible explanations are provided in the link.

Second, transitional fossils (CC200, 4th source). There are scads of them. This claim has no basis.

Third, the Darwin quote. Darwin loved to ask the hard questions and then answer them. In fact, any time you see someone quote *just* a question from Darwin, you ought to be highly suspicious. In this case, for example, the entire paragraph reads as so (you may verify with Source 5):
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time."

The first Gould quote?
"Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary of natural selection. Yet, as I argue in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"], Thomas Henry Huxley divided the two issues of natural selection and gradualism and warned Darwin that his strict and unwarranted adherence to gradualism might undermine his entire system. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it—selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory."
Note how "and the principle of natural selection does not require it" was omitted. (The text is in Source 6.)

The second Gould quote is, in fact, dealt with on TalkOrigins:


The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.


Source 7.

In fact, reading the above suggests yet another argument for the evolution of species by natural selection over creationism: that creationists so often and so authoritatively misrepresent and distort the facts to support their position. Can that indicate anything but a persistent delusion which, lacking evidence, accepts even the most invalid supporting arguments uncritically?

Answer 2

It's hard to prove a negative. It's even harder when you're trying to prove a negative with a complete lack of objective data. But I can point out the simple logical fallacy most people make when arguing for creation: not this therefor this.
A common fallacy. It's where an assumption is made that because the opposing argument does not offer conclusive evidence, the other argument is true. But, the opposing argument (evolution) does not dispute creationism soley on an abiogenesis perspective. It's highly unlikely that every aspect of the theory of evolution is 100% correct, but the FACT is that microevolution has been directly observed, the mechanisms of macroevolution have been directly observed. It's a fact that organisms evolve and adapt over time. What's not a known fact is the actual origin of life. Science has very plausible theories that have been supported thus far by experiments, but that doesn't mean that they're right. But that's the beauty of science. There's no beliefs to cling to, there's just evidence. If the evidence supports the theory, so much better for the theory. If the evidence doesn't, then the theory must be discarded or modified. But discarding a theory is rare, being that science doesn't just call something a theory as lay people do. Science must rigorously verify a theory's postulates before it's recognized as such. For example, relativity was not widely accepted until it's postulates and predictions were verified. Time dilation has been observed and measured. The bending of light in gravitational fields has been observed and measured. Likewise, the mechanisms of evolution have been observed and measured, its postulates have been tested, its predictions are sound. If you choose not to accept it, no matter. The theory of evolution is here to stay.

Answer 3

There is solid proof that evolution is a fact, because it has been observed in the wild and in captivity.

There is no "proof" of the theory of evolution, just masses of evidence that supports it.

There is solid proof the the account of creation given in the Bible as interpreted by "young Earth" creationists is incorrect. There is also sold proof that some "young Earth" creationists are habitual liars.

Edit - I note that the Rev. A. Einstein is unable to make a case without quoting the Bible. Typical.

Answer 4

Science is not in the business of "solid proof." Science is in the business of solid disproof. A theory can never be proven because there is always a set of observations, if one of which were made, would disprove the theory. For instance, if we observed elephants giving birth to penguins, or animals popping into existence out of nowhere, that wouldl be pretty good disproof of evolution. Once lots of independent scientists have attempted to disprove a theory in many different ways and failed, we say that the theory is well-established. Evolution is one of the most well-established of theories.

Answer 5

there is not any observable evidence or credible information that macro-evolution even occurs not to indicate people coming from different primates whether they do share a great share of genetic components....the full thought is a falsehood. life can't start up by employing itself right here or everywhere else. you want 20 left surpassed amino acids to form in the appropriate order and no scientific test thus far has shown that it is conceivable in the presence of an oxygen environment or absence of an oxygen environment---the two are adverse in some thank you to the formation of amino acids from molecules and formation in water is out because of the fact of hydrolysis which disolves bonds. or maybe an effortless cellular is the epitomy of complexity---not even adequate time in the universe for an effortless cellular to have progressed by employing random hazard. "God created" is the only scientific rationalization....all different thoughts are merely ordinary wishful thinking and delusional.

Answer 6

For many people, their faith outweighs science and no amount of scientific evidence will reach the standard of "solid proof."

Some believe in "scientific creationism" which is essentially re-writing the definition of "scientific" to include studies that completely ignore contradictory evidence so as to support the desired answer. That's not science. That is philosophy.

If your faith allows you to ask the question, "is there evidence of evolution", then the answer is yes, there is a mountain of evidence.

Consider the question of; "how old is the Earth?" This is a fundamental question for both sides. For creationist, the Earth is about 10,000 years old. This fits the story of Biblical creation as told in the Old Testament.

On the other side is the scientific evidence and credentials of hundreds of universities around the world, studying the Earth from various disciplines: astronomy, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, anthropology and biology.

Evidence from these and many other fields of study all corroborate and indicate the age of Earth is about 4 billion years.

I suggest you investigate for yourself. There are lots of resources on the Internet.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/age-of-earth.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-bible.htm

Answer 7

Well, for almost a hundred years before Darwin, zoologists and botanists were convinced of evolution by looking at the fossil record.

(Darwin didn't invent the idea, he simply came up with a convincing mechanism. One that explained just why species might change)

Deniers will deny, but the fossil record is actually good enough proof for anyone who wants to be reasonable about it. It might not be absolute proof, but it's accepted as such untill something better comes along. And "intelligent design" and the "anthropomorphic principle" don't come close.

Answer 8

Though sometimes I find the irrefutable proof somewhat "imaginative", there is skeletal proof that man varied greatly in his bone structure(arm length, jaw bone size, forehead slope and brain cavity size.) But you need imagination in order to create a picture.
So too applies for proofs "all done through creation". You don't question the creator.
Same kind of "magic"

Answer 9

There is not 'solid proof' for either side of this issue. I doubt there will ever be incontrovertible scientific evidence that we were created, even if it's true. How would you prove it?

What science should do is scientifically, and without bias, study the evidence, and let scientific statements carefully distinguish between what we can support with evidence, and what we think could have happened, and how we wish it happened.

Microevolution has a very solid scientific foundation. We find organisms in clusters, in modern taxonomy, the fossil record, and the DNA record. It is entirely possible that every organism in such a cluster descended genetically from a single prototype organism, with variations happening according to evolutionary principles. When you claim that unrelated clusters derived from a common ancestor, you do so without evidence.

Answer 10

Yes. It's been pointed out countless times, and yet creationists still don't listen. I doubt you're even interested in real evidence, but if you are, there have been several useful links posted.

Answer 11

Science doesn't do "proof". It's only meaningful in law, mathematics, and philosophy. It's the Creationists' favorite red herring.