What is the concrete evidence for evolution? refuting?

Question

The question is simple: Can you build a convincing case for evolution? Creation?

Answer 1

It is true that the "simplest" questions end up having the longest answers. My apologies in advance.

Darwinian evolution has amassed an enormous amount of evidence in support. To give only a few examples:

There is a great deal of evidence for pathogens evolving resistance under selective pressure of antibiotics--the so-called superbugs.

Also a lot of evidence that insects have evolved resistance to pesticides such as DDT.

Peppered moths are a great example of natural selection as well as how science works. The original research was widely excepted, but other evolutionary scientists found problems with the way that research was done. The research was redone, addressing the problems in methods, and reconfirmed the conclusions. (see first two links below).

Additional evidence for evolution can be found in looking at populations that are in the process of speciation. Since evolution does not proceed quickly enough to show that entire process in a human lifetime or even in several human lifetimes, you have to look at several examples:
1. Ligers and tigons: these are offspring of lions and tigers. Ligers are offspring of lionesses and male tigers, tigons the offspring of tigresses and male lions. Lions are known to have overlapped in range with tigers in the near past--the last 10,000 years or so (see third link below). Even now there are reports of rare crosses in the wild but normally crosses are in captivity and often by means of artificial insemination (the 3rd-5th links below). Only the female crosses are fertile.

2. Mules: Offspring of horses and asses (donkeys) are mules, well know for being sterile.

3. Herring Gulls: In England, The Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull coexist but do not interbreed--the sign of different species. However, if one follows the Herring Gull populations westward, around the Arctic Circle, one finds that the populations change in appearance, becoming more like Lesser Black-backed Gulls. By the time you reach England again, there are two species, even though up to that point, each population of gull can and does interbreed with it's neighbors. There are other examples, such as the salamander Ensatina in the US pacific coast (see the 6th and 7th links below).

Another major source of evidence is of course the fossil record. There are so many examples, that it is hard to single out just a few examples, but I'll try.

1. The evolution of life before 600 million years ago: It is well known that there was an (apparently ) enormous and sudden flowering of life in the Cambrian period, with little or no evidence of life in earlier rock. This for years has been used by creationists to attack evolution, but a great deal of research has been done in the last fifty years, and there is a good record now of life on earth going back to about 3.6 billion years ago. An excellent book on this topic is Andrew H. Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth" (see the 8th link below).

2. Evolution of Tetrapods and Cetaceans: A great deal of research, spanning paleontology, molecular genetics, ontology and other fields in Biology has been done on the evolution of land vertebrates (tetrapods), and a clear picture has emerged.
This has included many testable predictions (one of the elements of science--theories [that is, well-tested explanations] will generate testable hypotheses), such as predicting that one should find fossils of vertebrates in the process of adapting to life on land in rocks around 375 million years old-- a prediction that did happen.
No more interesting than the process by which vertebrates evolved to live on land, is the process by which the cetaceans evolved to live a fully aquatic life. Again, research in the last thirty years has clairified how this happened.
A good account for both of these is Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge : Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea" (see the 9th link below).

3. Human Evolution: This is of course the elephant in the corner. If evolution did not imply that humans evolved, the would be no fight at all. Without going into a HUGE amount of detail, I'll note that two of the most famous paleoanthropological finds were made by workers who predicted where fossil hominid remains were and then went out and found them: Eugen (or Eugene) DuBois and Pithecanthropus (now known as Homo erectus) in Java, and Louis Leakey and his hominid finds in East Africa (see the 10th-13th links below).

Before moving on to Creation, I want to emphasize several points.
First, the word "theory" has a different meaning in science then it does popularly. In science, a theory is an explanation or set of explanations for which there is a considerable body of supporting work, usually over a considerable period of time. Darwinian evolution, or, more exactly, the NeoDarwinian synthesis, now has 150 years of testing behind it. The popular meaning of "theory" is a yet untested or unsupported idea. This is closer to what science call a hypothesis, if it isn't a wild guess or assertion of opinion. A lot of confusion can be avoided if this difference is kept in mind.
Second, the NeoDarwinian synthesis is not something to just toss aside. It is the basic organizing theory in biology. There is very little in biology now that does not depend on or bear on evolution. Further, much evidence supporting evolution is basis in other scientific disciplines, such as physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry and so forth. Further, there are other field, such as medicine which depend on the insights gained from evolution.
Third, if you examine the links below, you'll find lots of disagreements among evolutionary scientists. This is not a weakness, but a strength. This is how science works. Ideas are presented, supported, tested, pulled apart, argued over until the idea is rejected, or tentatively accepted.
Classical physics was a set of explanations that had developed over a thousand-plus years. However at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries, it was found that it could not explain certain phenomena and was disproved. Yet we are still taught physics as new theories were proposed, tested and refined which incorporate what classic physics explained and also those phenomena that it could not.

Regarding Creation, I cannot build any case for its acceptance. Generally, creation is based on the belief in a God or Gods who acted to bring the material world into existence. More specifically, we tend to equate "creation" with a more or less literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

There really is nothing here to intersect or debate on. Either you believe in that interpretation or not. There is nothing that science can test for.

Science can only work with material causes and material phenomena. Why is this? Because science takes an explanation and tests it, trying to disprove it (you can't prove something is true, you can only disprove it).

How can you test creation? Every piece of evidence mentioned above can be met by the statement: "God in His wisdom has ordained it to be so".

There is really nothing to be said further, there is no point where they come to grips.

Why then the "controversy"? It is because some people of belief feel that the concept of evolution is so contrary to belief that it should not be taught, or if it does that creation should be taught too.

In the US, there is now almost forty years of case law that concludes that Creation is a specific form of religious belief and cannot be taught in public schools as science (see the 14th and 15th links below).

Creation supporters want creation in some form taught to oppose evolution. They have tried to repackage creationism as "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism", they have tied to get equal time for it in the classroom, and the courts have in each case declared it to be religion, not science.

Most recently, creationism has been repackaged as "Intelligent Design", with the more modest goal of "teaching the controversy", by which they mean the "scientific" controversy.

Intelligent design got its day in court in the case Kitzmiller vs Dover, where all parties wanted the judge to rule on whether ID was or was not science. Judge Jones clearly ruled that ID was not science, only creationism--i.e. religion renamed. (see link 15 below for links to all the case documents, and link 16 for Judge Jones' decision).

One of the most damning exhibits presented was proof that the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" was really a Creation Science textbook, with ID language replacing Creationist language. In fact a poor job was done, so that the term "creationists" was replaced with "cdesign proponentsists" instead of the intended "intelligent design proponents" (see links 17-21 below).

So if creationism is religion, not science, where do they draw a scientific case. The blunt fact is that they don't. Their "case" is based on misrepresenting the work of evolutionists, selective quoting to make individuals say things other then they actually said. They want to get some form of creation into the schools (currently this form is Intelligent Design) to effect a societal change, not to teach science. (this is not really denied by the creationists, they quite openly have their strategy, called the "Wedge Strategy" on the web, see link 22. For more on creationist tactics and their refutation, see "Panda's Thumb", link 23 below).

To conclude, evolution is a well-supported scientific theory with almost 150 years of scientific study backing it up. Creation is a religious belief, incapable of scientific testing. The "controversy" is to try to promote religion in society under the guise of science.

To the extent the controversy should be taught, it should be taught in social science classes.

1. http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm
2.http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/peppered-moths-1.html
3.http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566718/Lion.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
5. http://www.geocities.com/pride_lands/Liger_Tigon.html
6. http://blog.case.edu/singham/2007/08/01/evolution17_how_species_diverge
7. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/index.html#species_and_speciation
8. http://www.amazon.com/Life-Young-Planet-Evolution-Princeton/dp/0691120293/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196950891&sr=1-1
9. http://www.amazon.com/At-Waters-Edge-Fingers-Whales/dp/0684856239
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/edubois.html
11. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/leakey_louis.html
12. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lleakey.html
13. http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/foundation/f1_2.jsp
14. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3747_8_major_court_decisions_agains_2_15_2001.asp
15. http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=5
16. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf
17. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/origins_of_ID/Forrest_2005_summary_Tracing_ID_Ancestry.pdf
18. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/origins_of_ID/Forrest_chart1.png
19. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/origins_of_ID/Forrest_chart2.png
20. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/origins_of_ID/Forrest_demonstratives_used.pdf
21. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html
22. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
23. http://www.pandasthumb.org/

Answer 2

You won't find a concrete evidence to prove Creation.
But you can prove that species evolve to adapt to the changes in the environment.
I don't beleive that all living things came from the same cell, but instead that every existing living specie is a survivor from the evolution of their own specie.

I mean the birds were always birds, and they suffered some changes throughtout the milleniums, as well as fishes, mammals, reptiles, even plants and trees.

The only survivors are the strongest species.
The weak ones died, (extinct). That is evolution. A NATURAL SELECTION where the strongest prevail.

Want a concrete evidence.
Well just observe the actual human being, and compare it to the Chromagnon ancestors....bone size, body shape, body position has slightly been changed to adapt to the new environment we live in.
The same thing had happened with ALL living creatures, at least in the world we know.

Keep in mind tha LIFE is in constant "change".
A change is an adaptation, a modification, an EVOLUTION.!

Answer 3

The simplest definition for evolution is change over time. Nuclear physics is advanced to the degree that the half life of particular isotopes can be accurately determined. Radiometric dating has reliably dated fossils that have definitely shown progression through time of various types of animals. It has clearly shown adaptive radiation or the formation of new species. That is not arguable and it makes the simplest definition of evolution a fact as much as it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun.

There is a section of DNA found on all higher eukaryotes in their mitochondria that doesn't code for proteins called the D loop or hypervariable region. It demonstrates that distinct species such as humans and chimps share common ancestors. That puts to rest the baseless allegations by "intelligent design" that species don't form. The tree of life can be determined by simply measuring the differences in the hypervariable region of the mitochondria. There are other genes that are shared by animals in nuclear DNA but it is not as simple to make the argument for them because they are much more complex.

The eukaryotic cell has mechanisms that increase variation and it is built into the machinery. That is an obvious adaption to make selection, the mechanism of evolution, more efficient. There is "crossing over" that exchanges genes between different chromosomes. There are mechanisms that periodically transport movable code from on place on the chromosome to another. Sexual selection itself is apparently an adaptation that makes evolution more efficient.

The fossil record is backed up by the theory of natural selection being the mechanism. It is a logical and is not refuted scientifically and is a valid explanation describing how evolution works.

Embryos often show signs of features that exist in previous forms.

There is no scientific evidence for creation. All the arguments for "intelligent design" are based on the average person's lack of understanding of the subject. In other word, they are often distortions of logic and propaganda. I am sure some are just ignorant but I am convinced that much of it is so well crafted that it is intensional distortion.

Answer 4

As Ken Ham has said, "Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events . . .Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions."

You ought to read this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

Answer 5

Some good answers here, but I am not going to type a case for evolution myself, as these people do a much better job than I can.


http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

Answer 6

Creation, No. Any biology will have a good case for evolution.

Answer 7

Modern evolutionary thought is a robust theory. It is based on a myriad of smaller theories. Look at the subtheories individually to see massive evidence.