Evolutionists, please show us your evidence that proves evolution is true.?

Question

Please do not make empty claims. This question is about “evidence” and facts. Let’s see if you can do that without misrepresenting the facts (for a change).

Please define which type of “evolution” you are proving. Evolution is NOT simply change, but a certain kind of change. Unless you specify otherwise, we will presume “evolution” to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans. We are informed that the dominant mechanism that is supposed to have driven evolution is natural selection coupled with mutations. If there is a different type of evolution you wish to present evidence for, like stellar evolution (Big Bang), chemical evolution (origins of life), or biological evolution (common descent or comparative anatomy), please specify the difference and define specifically what you are trying to prove.

No five-word answers – we don’t care about your empty-headed prattle. Please go to the kiddie section for your dings, bells, buzzers and Google Chat notification tones. We’re trying to get down to business here and present some facts, not the continuous lowlights of what you think might be true.

The same old tired claims will not go unchallenged. Some of the lies misrepresented as truth are presented in the following list. Please check the list before posting. While dismantling the presuppositions and misrepresentations of previous evolutionist posts, I’ve articulated clearly and persuasively the following list of refuted subjects.

1.	Fossil record. The evolutionary account of one kind of life-form changing into another kind is not recorded in the fossils. There are many instances where variations within a kind are found (for example, different varieties of elephant or dinosaur) but there are no examples of in-between kinds. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that the intermediate transitional forms expected on the basis of slow gradual change of one kind of creature into another kind is not found fossilized in the sedimentary rocks. In other words, the transitional forms are missing—hence the term “missing links.”  
Do you think the fossil record is creation evidence or evolution evidence?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At24fA67GZ3wy7D4qSBfDjDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120213201222AAMlE1i

2.	Missing Links. This evolutionary account of one kind of life-form changing into another kind is NOT recorded in the fossils.

3.	Geologic Column.  The illustrations of geologic time and the geologic column are actually composites compiled from many different sources. The fossil and geologic evidences are pieced together from all over the globe. The presence of unconformities (places where there are gaps in the sequence) is explained away, and the fact that many “ancestral” species occur higher in the strata than their descendants is ignored in these simplified illustrations. 

4.	Radiometric Dating. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists. The geologic layers, plate tectonics, radiometric dating, and the fossil record can all be explained within the framework provided by the Bible.

5.	Dating human remains. The dating methods of secular archaeologists are based on incorrect assumptions, and you have to believe that the Mt. St. Helens eruption didn’t happen in 1980 and 1982. After all, dating methods reveal that Mt. St. Helens’ lava dome was 340,000 to 2.8 million years old! 
Why do Christians reject stone hard evidence of evolution ?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As487dN_qLouF3tXqG5yPkPty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120220121306AAUQR2g

6.	Natural Selection. Natural selection (done in the wild) and artificial selection (as done by breeders) produce enormous varieties within the different kinds of plants and animals. It has proved an impossible feat, however, to change one kind of creature into a different kind of plant or animal. The so-called “kind barrier” has never been crossed. Such evolution has never been observed. Natural selection cannot be the driving force for molecules-to-man evolution when it does not have that power. It is an observable phenomenon that preserves genetic viability and allows limited variation within a kind—nothing more, nothing less.

7.	DNA. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter (Riddle 2009, p. 202).
Refuted here: “Selective breeding of horses, cattle, dogs…” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar09WxSOxJSp89hRWXyuKGzty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120213190155AASGd6v  
Creationist do you have any evidence that your right and evolution is wrong?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApdGkImoSfMRCI8rNx8S7Jnty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120220115503AAzfwnk

David G · Accepted Answer

Good luck trying to get evolutionists to get beyond "elephant hurling" to actually discussing FACTS.
They are very good at making reference to websites that go into a lot of detail as to WHY an evolutionist should be excluded from answering certain questions. For instance abiogenesis is the logical extrapolation of evolution - oh no - uh we don't want to talk about that - that's not evolution.
And if you want an example of how natural selection plus mutation are building the genome in a manner that might demonstrate the process of how single celled organisms eventually evolve into humans - well, thats not evolution either apparently. It appears that any question too hard has nothing to do with evolution.
So all you'll get is deny deny deny, get an education, get a life, and they might throw in the all popular websites that are apparently filled with an encyclopaedia of evidence. I think the actual evidence must be towards the end of those websites because you got to do a lot of reading before you actually get to anything if you do - and most of that reading will involve justifying why normal scientific methodology shouldn't be used in biology if you want to prove evolution.

Blargoth · Answer

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Read all of that; then we'll talk.

1 and 2) In fact: all fossils are transitional fossils. Here, read this if you are really interested.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

Number 3 and 4 are simply untrue, and you need to provide sources if you are going to ask for the same.

Number 5 is kind of pathetic on your part. Of course the lava is old. It didn't simply begin to exist when Mt. St. Helens erupted... Wow.

Number 6: You mean speciation? That has been observed in nature.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17213912

Number 7: Yes, there is. There are many. Some much more complicated than DNA. Amino Acids and Protein comes to mind. In any case, this is inductive reasoning, and not deductive reasoning. If inductive reasoning faces deductive reasoning, deductive win every time.

ALSO NOTE: Yahoo Answers questions =/= a credible source. You do realize that I could put anything I want on Yahoo Answers (in fact, I am right now).

godless · Answer

All of your claims have been repeatedly shown to be wrong.  You haven't done your homework, which is to educate yourself. This isn't uncommon for theists, who've been taught that "God did it" is a reasonable explanation for just about everything.

The Theory of Evolution has overwhelming and conclusive evidence.  There are at least eleven areas of study and empirical data supporting the Theory of Evolution. They are:
* Paleontology (fossils)
* Genetics
* Distribution of Animals and Plants
* Comparative Anatomy
* Embryology
* Vestigial Organs
* Natural Selection
* Sexual Selection
* Molecular Biology
* Bad Design
* Lab Experiments

The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus.  The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease.

For more evidence, see the first four links.  The first link has the evidence that conclusively proves that humans share common ancestry with the chimps, apes, and orangutans.
-

? · Answer

Wow, look kids.  A text wall of nonsensical claims that have been refuted by scientists for decades.

I don't have time to refute this mess.  Provide one item at a time, or take a damn class.  I spend enough hours a day correcting this kind of unscientific, poorly researched crap on my students' papers.  There are 150 years worth of hard scientific evidence for evolution- mountains worth.  And you expect us to ream it all out for you on a YA post format?

Start here, and get back to me when you stop posting strawmen, flat out incorrect statements, and very old "arguments" against evolution (including redefining it to suit your needs- evolution does not say "molecules to man"):
http://www.talkorigins.org

EDIT- 
If you could refute the evidence for "macroevolution" you'd have a Nobel, kid.  Tell us another one.

? · Answer

There is huge amounts of proof in libraries, universities, museums and so many other places! So do you lack education? Were you home schooled? Indoctrinated by an extremist sect? or, are you working for the devil and the antichrist to try and ridicule Chrsitianity?! The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution! Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”! Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense! But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology! Surveys suggest that 29% of American christians are so extremist in their beliefs that they fall well outside of the accepted bounds of christianity! Please state which extremist sect you belong to so that GOOD christians can disassociate themselves from you and explain why your sect is so at odds with Christianity!

? · Answer

I don't feel like reading your entire wall and responding to each point, so I'll just throw a few links at you and hope you learn something from them:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://talkorigins.org/
http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://www.becominghuman.org/
http://telewatcher.com/drama/links-for-arguing-with-creationists/

And, generally, abiogenesis (going from non-living chemicals to the first proto-life) is a different theory from evolution.  We have some guesses about it, but as it's further back and has left fewer traces, we can't be sure.  That last link has links to some very nice videos on the subject.

Torgo · Answer

Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequency in a population.  With this in mind, everything you copied and pasted is irrelevant.

? · Answer

Wrong section.
Very wrong section!

Trending News

Evolutionists, please show us your evidence that proves evolution is true.?

8 Answers