Evidence of evolution?

Question

I have a problem, a creationist friend asked me about the evidence for evolution in respect of the origins of man... i guess having studied it at school such a long time ago i just took it for granted and aside from a dusty copy of darwin's 'origin of species' i have little else to present. scrambling around the internet for irrefutable academic sources has proved more difficult than i expected.

please help me!!! do you know of any good sources (not too technical) but please, no youtube video links :) thanks

Answer 1

I would consider the depth of evidence on evolution to be fundamental and established in the scientific community. Look no further than the similarities to simian. Man often acts in an oafish and stupid capacity, like an ape. If you need to dig deeper for specific examples there are studies in short lived species (e.g. fruit flies, viruses) that show changes in DNA (that is what evolution is!). Add to this the fossil records from the Gobi dessert region in China which show significant evidence that birds are descended from small flying dinosaurs and you have a pretty good case for evolution. The real problem that you have though is not in trying to account for evolution with evidence but in trying to convince someone, who is already convinced in one way because of religious convictions, of something else that is measured by reason. Religion is often not the vestige of rational thought.

Answer 2

A caution, arguing with a creationist isn't productive. As you can see from some of the replies to your post , there's often lots of misinformation, sweeping statements and attacks on evolution. That evolution has been around for 150 years and no basic tent has been disproved, doesn't count.

Evolution has been demonstrated through selective breeding, deep ocean core samples, fossils and the known history of life on the planet. That's just a few of the sources.

The best site to learn about evolution is:

National Academy of Sciences: (Guidebook on Evolution)

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

To quote from this source:



"Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and earth have changed through time, and so has life on earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

"Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

A common comment is that man "descended from the apes." Consider:

"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we shared common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

One example of creationist thinking is the focus on a "missing link" While one can list Australopithecus afarenis; Australopithecus africanus; Australopithecus robustis;   Australopithecus boisei; Homo habilis; Homo erectus; Homo sapiens neanderthalenis; Homo sapiens; and Homo sapiens sapiens in our lineage, the creationist response is to demand the missing link between each!

       See the links below about questions to ask creationists. Don't be surprised if what you get back is dogma with attacks on science and yourself.

Answer 3

exactly, evolution did not happen. we are created by God.

Answer 4

Wikipedia is a good source for anything.

One of the most famous evolution links is Lucy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Aus...

Other evidence suggesting creation is flawed is the age of the earth, dinosaurs, the nuclear decay of the sun.

Answer 5

I think the most obvious answer would be the similarities to us and Chimps.  Chimps share most of our DNA.  Their DNA demonstrates a relatedness that is far closer than say a dog.  You can actually look at the DNA and sometimes know what genes we share and what those genes do.   You can see that those genes are or aren't not present in dogs.  A close study will leave any reasonable person without much doubt.  Then you have mitochondrial DNA which changes through mutations at a roughly constant interval which provides confirmatory evidence.  Then you can look at the fossil evidence which is somewhat limited based on the limited number of fossils. You can look at various modifications that our ancestors and chimp ancestors undertook.  It all becomes as obvious as the fact that the earth is not flat.

Answer 6

You are asking the wrong question really.

Everyone has the same evidence - which exists in the present.

The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that they interpret the evidence with different assumptions.

Noone know for sure what happenned in the past since there was noone there. The past is not subject to the scientific method of observation, test, hypothesis, etc.

What an objective person can do is to look at the evidence, examine the competing explanations (with their assumptions), and see which explanation is the best.

For example take fossils. Evolutionists claim that they are very old and have taken millions of years to form.

Creationists claim that (the vast majority of them) were laid down recently by the global flood.

So how do we date fossils? Evolutionists date them by the rocks they are found in. But the rocks are dated by the fossils found in them! And all based on long age uniformitarian assumptions.

And how do fossils form? Well you don't create a fossil by burying a creature one millimetre at a time. The fact that fossils exist is proof that they were buried quickly. There are even fossils of creatures giving birth and in the middle eating. And fossils of soft parts of jellyfish. Fossils are from rapidly buried creatures.

How old are fossils? They don't come with labels on. There is nothing to contradict the idea that they are just a few thousand years old. In fact there is evidence to support this. Dinosuar bones have been found containing blood remains. Hardly 65 million years old!

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/...

Creationists claim that there was a global flood covering the whole world, which would cause sediment and kill billions of creatures. What do we see: the world is covered by sedimentary rock, laid down by water, containing billions of dead creatures.

So does the fossil evidence favour evolution? hardly!

Whatever evidence an evolutionist gives you - check out the creationists explanation (eg here http://www.creationontheweb.com). Check both sides' assumptions and look carefully at the evidence presented.

Evolutionists have a habit of misleading to suit their dogmatic views.

The origin of man is that he was created.

Check evolutionists claims against this reality check:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view...

Answer 7

I agree pretty much with what Chas_chas wrote:

"The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that they interpret the evidence with different assumptions.

Noone know for sure what happenned in the past since there was noone there. The past is not subject to the scientific method of observation, test, hypothesis, etc.

What an objective person can do is to look at the evidence, examine the competing explanations (with their assumptions), and see which explanation is the best."

I was raised from a scientific perspective, so I used to believe in evolution - without ever really checking any evidence, I just accepted it like a belief system, a religion.

Considering, however, that many biblical reports were confirmed by archeology and that the success of gradualism and the theory of evolution certainly had ideological reasons - it served to undermine the picture the medieval church painted of ancient history.  

When I learned that there is a third position called catastrophism, which does not deny the possibility of catastrophes such as a global flood as the bible reports, it had me scratching my head.  

Catastrophism is different from creationism in that catastrophists come from a scientific background and do not believe in a personal creator god as creationists do - but they acknowledge the possibility of catastrophes in the past that had extraterrestrial origins (the extinctions of the dinosaurs, for example), and some catastrophists also acknowledge the possibility that some of these catastrophes happend within human history (archeologists do dig out destruction layers all around the world in their excavations).

For me, evolution isn´t a scientific theory - there cannot be a scientific theory about the past, only plausible reconstructions.  Evolutionism to me is a religion of the modern age, tied to modern capitalism basically - just like christianity is a religion.

If you want to check out what catastrophists have to say about their view of what might have happened, check out

Trevor Palmer: Controversy - Catastrophism and Evolution.

Victor Clube/Bill Napier: The Cosmic Winter

D.S. Allen/J.B. Delair: Cataclysm.

A more controversial name connected with catastrophism would be Immanuel Velikovsky, who essentially set out to prove that the biblical record was correct using scientific arguments ... in a fierce debate with evolutionists, he was dismissed as a charlatan.

I haven´t made up my mind yet as to what to believe, and I haven´t had the time to check out the debate between evolutionists and catastrophists yet, including their ideological implications (religion vs. science, feudalism vs. capitalism and democracy) - but I will do in due time.

Just wanted to share that there is a third view besides evolutionism and creationism - I don´t have an agenda here, u gonna have to make up your mind yourself.

Cheers!

Answer 8

You definitely won't find it in Darwin's "Origins" book. The question of Man's origin is not for the scientists, but for the philosophers and/or theologists. There is no way to scientifically prove the origin of Man.

You have to understand the difference between fact and interpretation. When archaeologists dig up bones in the dirt what they see are bones. Nothing else. They then infer what they see and put their own interpretations on them. Kind of like a crime scene. Sometimes they are 100% right, sometimes they are 100% wrong, and sometimes they are somewhere in between.

I would not suggest pointing to homo erectus or anything like that. Your friend will know about the problems, mistakes, and lies that surround them.

My best advice is to seek truth; not win an argument. Ask sincere questions; don't try to trip the opponent up. My pastor once told me that "you cannot argue anyone into the Kingdom of Heaven."

*Never rely on Wikipedia for the final say on anything. It may be a good start, but it is certainly a poor ending. People can go in and change things or just type in some plain nonsense.

Answer 9

These people have a section on mans evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 10

The most visable records of human evolution start with Homo erectus about 1.8 million years ago. The fossils become more sparse the further back in time one goes. Homo erectus left Africa ~1.1 million years ago & populated Europe & Asia. We can follow erectus evolution throughout Africa, Europe & Asia. They developed what we know as modern wrist bones about 800,000 yrs ago (the ability to execute precise snapping motions with the wrist) & their brains progressively became larger as time wore on. Eventually, below the neck, they became almost identical to Homo sapiens. The later erectus fossils are very difficult to tell from archaic Homo Sapiens & some finds are still debated as to which species they belong. Later erectus fossils indicate a brain about 20% smaller than sapien, but within the low sapien range.

Homo floresiensis found on Flores Island has been dated to ~14,000 yrs ago & was a hotly disputed find that Afro-centrists proclaimed to be a deformed modern human... however the wrist bones were found to be identical to ancient Homo erectus, therefore ruling out a deformed human & placing them as a dwarf species of early Homo erectus. Therefore floresiensis must be classified as another line that evolved from erectus, as neandertal is thought to have done.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

Recent advances in DNA sequencing have allowed us to track mutation rates & evolution rates among all animals on our planet.  We are making great progress on mapping evolution of both extinct & living life on this planet. All this evidence is supportive of evolution & none of it backs the creationist view. To date no creationist has been able to present one piece of credible evidence to me. I must conclude that creationists are either outright liars or uneducated & misquided people.

One creationist poster posted some misinformation here & I will give you the corrections to this misinformation... which of course has nothing to support creationist claims, but is simply anti science & creationist mythology.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/a...

This is on the T-Rex DNA recovered.

The 2nd link does not work.

The 3rd link is to a theological creationist link... again they provide no evidence to support their view that man walked with dinosaurs & their views could be debunked by a bright 7 yr old child.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Answer 11

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

There's also "Talk Origins" web site, with loads of links.

Um, there's just a WEE BIT more evidence than there was in Darwin's day, such as DNA and loads of fossil evidence -- to name just two types of evidence.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming; for creationism, none.

Oh, specifically on human evolution:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bein...

Some of the links on the New Sceintist site are for subscribers only, but others are free.