Darwinian evolutionists, can you please give specific evidence for your belief??

EQNA is a growing interactive people-knowledge network with more than 120,000 questions and 450,000 answers from over 55,000 members worldwide. With all friendly functions, EQNA will be a fun place to join, share and discover knowledge, an open net space allowing you to connect with other people having specialized knowledge or ones with same interests to yours. EQNA login features secured logins using Twitter and Facebook enable you to place questions without sharing your personal information to us. Lets get out and join our community today!

Ask a Question

Tangent Bill

Darwinian evolutionists, can you please give specific evidence for your belief??

I am an old-earth biblical creationist.

Answer this question

Whipsaw:

"Darwinian"?!?

W'd-U-Say:

I guess those of us who still believe in physics are "Newtonians".

Rich:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
http://mmbr.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/1/229
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5484/1546
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/34/12444
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/5491/516
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;288/5469/1211
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;275/5308/1934
http://www.jstor.org/pss/63183
http://www.dbmi.columbia.edu/~xiw7002/xiaoyan_files/N_genetics.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2407792
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=383514
Let me know if you need more, I just found a couple papers...

Rich:

By the way, to completely understand a scientific journal you should probably take a class or two on reading them. They usually take a great deal of analysis to understand. I try to do a journal paper per day....but I have considerable experience. It is important to check all references.

SULLY:

G-d may strike you dead! ;)

Rich:

And, once again...there is no such thing as a Darwinist.

Also, evolution is not a belief, it is a theory supported by a great deal of evidence. I know you claim the same for creationism, yet you never state any evidence to support your claim.

Rich:

@Elexa - Well, then I'd finally have hard evidence for his existence :)

Angelo:

Yes you will - but it will be too late to do anything about your destination.

Rich:

If your God is that spiteful, what makes you think I'd want to spend an eternity with him?

SULLY:

Indeed.

Whipsaw:

Stunningly well done, I was going to answer but instead I think I'll vote.

Angelo:

Bue - He won't force you to - thought you had that figured out.

Rich:

My point Scarecrow, is that if God laid out all of this evidence contradictory to his existence and presence, gave me a brain smart enough to interpret this data as such, and then can't understand why I don't believe in him and he still won't forgive me.....

That god seems like an egotistical, evil, spiteful and horrible God. Why would I want to live with someone like that? I love how Christians say God is all-wonderful and forgiving yet they still condemn people to hell...a job that they already know isn't theirs...but they still partake in it frequently.

W'd-U-Say:

Scarecrow still thinks that scare tactics are an effective tool for proselytization.

I lol'd.

Angelo:

My point Bue is that God left us plenty of evidence, but those who choose to ignore it and Him will eventually find out.

Rich:

You have still failed to point out such evidence Scarecrow.

Angelo:

Look out your window.

Rich:

So, by that statement, you are claiming that God planted evidence contrary to his own existence just to test us? Once again, we are back to the question on why I would want to live with a god who would do that?

Angelo:

Rom 1:20-22 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

To look at creation and NOT see God is what that passage is about. You choose to rely on our minute understanding of the "science" we have and totally dismiss any other option. Simple as that - you can blame God if you like but it is you choosing to ignore Him rather than the situation you describe.

Rich:

It is quite clear that this conversation is completely fruitless scarecrow. You assume that I have ruled out God, which is an incorrect opinion. I simply see no evidence supporting the role of a supreme creator. It is not my fault that you do not understand science and see possible evidence contrary to God. Rather than looking at the opinion of science you immediately say, "God did it." There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution yet you seemingly choose to ignore it or ridicule it (even though it is supported over and over again), because it does not fit with your religious beliefs. Once again, I ask for any direct evidence that God created everything. Such evidence must disprove the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. The evidence must also be quantitative and objective....a signature on a mountain would be nice. After all, all artists sign their work.

Angelo:

OK - here is the signature you require. 5 minutes in you will see the mountain top where God rested upon. I challenge you to go there and see for yourself that only this mountain (none of the others near by) has the top burned. It was exposed to intense heat and some of the rocks have been broken open to expose the normal rock inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyv1JiIEEV4&feature=related

Not sure how long this link will work but it is working now.

Angelo:

This one is the one I was actually looking for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQR2w4qXwPM

Angelo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6AYug2IlpE&feature=related

OK - finally found the spot I wanted you to see - 4 minutes into part 4 where they go up and break the rocks open. I hope you watch the entire 5 parts as it is a very interesting video. At least watch the introduction so you become familiar with the individuals that went on this journey.

Dimview09:

That is the funny thing, there is no absolute evidence. None at all.

Leeroy Jenkins:

Yes there is, just observe the same species of plants in different environments and types of soil. the plants have a different growth habit and will reproduce differently depending on the the availability of sun light, rain and nutrients in the soil type. This is also taught in basic biology in high school.

Dimview09:

As I see it no one has evidence that evolution had anything to do with the beginning of life on this planet, there is not evidence. There is evidence of some sorts of evolution of existing species yes but even at that they have not found transitional species, not yet anyway.

Rich:

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life on this planet...that is an entirely different subject. As for there being no transitional species, I'd like to know where you got your information. There are a huge number of transitional species that are known.

.......:

Monkeys also watch TV. And some even write the shows. Direct link.

Sdkjf:

They want to act like animals.
Darwin says they are animals, so they can act accordingly.
It is an anarchists wet dream.
If that is how they want to live, so be it.

Trina:

You are converting to a train of thought that will lead you down a path of nothingness.

Ed:

Evolution has been observed directly many times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You can run simulations yourself on your computer. Change the conditions and see how evolution works.
http://www.download.com/Conway-s-Game-Of-Life/3000-7551_4-10793242.html?tag=lst-1&cdlPid=10793243
Creationists need to find one missing thing if they wish to disprove evolution. They need to determine how DNA can "know" when speciation happens, and what specific proccess prevents accumulations of mutations which would result in speciation. There is a very good reason they are not even researching this area....they know that no such process exists.

Leeroy Jenkins:

Take a biology class, and also, you need to pay attention to what is going on in the world around you.

Lester:

It's not a "belief" in the sense that I chose it among a set of options, all of which are equally valid. It is a Theory -- with a capital T -- a set of observations and models that can be used to not only explain the world as it is, but also has predictive power.

Here are three things that Theory of Evolution predicts that turn out to be empirically true, and that you can observe for yourself.

First, that simpler species (or rather, their fossils) appear deeper in geologic strata. You dig deeper, you find older things.

Second, mircrobes evolve quickly. All you need to do to convince yourself of that is skip your flu shots every year. If you don;t like that, go read: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/06/04/tracking-adaptation-as-bacteria-evolve. You can literally see evolution in progress.

Finally, long before anyone knew about DNA, evolution predicted that there must be some sort of information storage mechanism, and lo and behold, there was DNA.

I believe in evolution because it is useful. It has predictive power. It can help me explain the world in a rational way so that I can improve my life and the lives of others. It is the foundation of modern biology.

Leeroy Jenkins:

Thanks Lester, we appreciate this and hope the questioner is a bit more 'enlightened'.

W'd-U-Say:

I'm not going to hold my breath. James is notorious for conveniently "forgetting" that he posts questions like this.

I'm starting to think he has Alzheimer's.

W'd-U-Say:

James, I don't think it's up to us here.
You're obviously set in your delusion (hence why you're calling us "Darwinian evolutionists").

If you want to go on believing that some magical, all-powerful space fairy needed 6 days to make everything you see in its current state, then fine. You've asked questions like this several times now, and no response has been to your satisfaction.

The evidence is there, James, If you want to deny it, you're only making yourself look the fool. Evolutionary theory is a fact of modern biology and we wouldn't have advances in modern medicine without it.

You're wasting everyone's, including your own, time now.

MAINFRAME:

James, I hope you can see from the answers above that you are only succeeding in making a fool of yourself by continually repeating the same questions. If you were only making a fool of yourself, I wouldn't worry, but you are dragging Christianity down with you. I resent that, as you make us all out to be fools. Please act more intelligently..............

Little:

darwinian evolutionist? thats like saying youre an einsteinian physicist... its a ridiculous title... so much has changed since the days of darwin, just as the days of einstein...

my evidence for evolution is in genetics and fossil records...

life on earth can only be explained by evolution... (or magical instant creation)...

Angelo:

"or magical instant creation" yeahhhhhhhhhh I knew you would eventually come around!

Little:

yeah ive been drinking coronas on sanibel island for the past week... gotta love it... wake to the dolphins playing and the manatees eating... go to sleep with the sea turtles laying their eggs 100yrds away from you... it was really amazing... i went snorkeling and touched a shark... guess it wasnt hungry... (VERY ROUGH SKIN BTW)...

Tangent Bill:

I say darwinian evolutionist to refer to macro-evolutionists. I believe there is micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution, therefore I am not a darwinian evolutionist. I am an old-earth creationist.

Little:

well james... micro and macro evolution are terms created by creationists... youre so called micro-evolution is simply a small change... youre so called macro-evolution is simply a succession of small changes...

consider a large animal that lives near the sea, it adapts to its environment... it ventures into the waters to catch prey... eventually these small changes will produce webbed feet... millions of years later, those legs and feet turn into flippers... millions of more years, it is better suited for life in the sea... millions of years later, it spends its entire life in the water... a succession of small changes has turned an animal that looked like a bear into a whale...

i know you are an old earth creationist but there is no evidence for that... you need just as much faith to believe in that as you do the belief in god... you would have to believe that a god created every form of life that has ever existed, in successive order, from very primitive, to more complex... and spent 300 some odd million years doing it, rolling out new species here and there... this is nonsensical... the evidence shows that these life forms evolved from previous life...

you keep referring to hugh ross... but what you dont realize is his science is garbage... have you ever studied his ideas? obviously not, or you would know his math is way off, and most of his ideas have no more evidence than any philosophy or opinion... its like saying the sun must be a giant light bulb because thats what it looks like... he is a joke of the scientific community...

james, its one thing to believe in god, but to deny evolution is to deny science...

Sharona:

I don't understand why so many people insist on an either/or stand for this question. There is abundant evidence that evolution has shaped our world and the life it contains. That doesn't necessarity mean that evolution was not shaped by an intelligent Creator. (I look at the awesome complexity of creation and find it hard to believe that it was all the result of random events, with no plan or intent behind it.) The Creationists want to insist that the universe we know was made in six days, but who defines the length of the day? Why shouldn't a day, in the mind of God, be a few million years as perceived by mankind? God or evolution? I believe in both and don't find the two explanations at all incompatible.