is evolution real

Con's arguments appear coherent at first, But are actually based on fallacious arguments and completely unsubstantiated claims with links to inaccessible Google Docs. That said, I will attempt to go through their statements one-by-one:"The Details Of The Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macro-Evolution"Con claims (without one shred of evidence or citation of academic/scientific/scholarly sources) that this is the "STRONGEST piece of data to tell us that macro-evolution never happened, " so it would follow that proving the fossil record to actually support the theory of evolution would suffice in defeating their argument. Below are a number of reputable sources showing this to be the case:- "The fossil record clearly indicates that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, Which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks. " (Baylor Department of Geosciences)- "Today, Many thousands of ancient rock deposits have been identified that show corresponding successions of fossil organisms. . . Older fossils are found in the lower layers, Revealing the succession of organisms over time (https://goo. Gl/LQeRMS). . . Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, Found in well-dated rock sequences, Represent successions of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. " (National Academy of Sciences) - "The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, When assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years" (Berkeley - Understanding Evolution)- "Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution" (Forbes - https://goo. Gl/UhNUU8) - "Fossils tell us when organisms lived, As well as provide evidence for the progression and evolution of life on earth over millions of years. " (Lumen)"Structural Homology: More evidence against macro-evolution"Here, Con correctly illustrates the fact that most consider structural/anatomical homology to be proof for evolution, But never does a good job arguing why it should do the opposite. Here are a number of reputable sources that make proper conclusions:- "While the evidence of homologous structures has been known for quite some time, It was only fairly recently that it has become widely accepted as evidence for evolution. Not until the latter half of the 20th century, When it became possible to analyze and compare DNA, Were researchers able to reaffirm the evolutionary relatedness of species with homologous structures. " (Heather Scoville)- "Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology: Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures). " (Khan Academy)- "What observable evidence exists to support the idea that life on earth has evolved its diversity through a long process of descent with modification? One of the most powerful forms of evidence is homology. " (Dr. Dana Krempels)- "Evolution makes sense of homologies" (UBC Biology)Con attempts to sway voters by invoking some scientific nomenclature, Namely "cytochrome C". However, I'd urge Con/voters to take a look at the actual scientific literature (since they provided no sources aside from a locked Google Doc) that explains the role of cytochrome C in this debate. The most highly-regarded such article would be this one (https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714796/) provided by the US National Library of Medicine - National Institute of Health"Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution"This is a rather silly string of arguments masquerading as an attempt to reason logically. Closer examination, However, Reveals it to be utterly meaningless and irrelevant. Before looking at this from a macro level, I'd just like to quickly dive in and show how unsubstantiated and untrue Con's claims are. For example, They state that "The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. " However, This is simply untrue. There are countless sources discussing the myriad species of fish with teeth:- https://goo. Gl/n51cX3- https://goo. Gl/EcSXwS- https://goo. Gl/bT6YFZ- https://goo. Gl/jwJzzoIn this section, Con also claims, "Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. " That is simply not true. No credible scientist on earth will tell you that this is a claim of evolutionary theory. As far as the evolution of actual mutualism is concerned:- "These mutualisms represent major evolutionary innovations" (National Center for Biotechnology Information, U. S. National Library of Medicine)- "Organisms in a mutualistic relationship evolved together. " (NESCI)- "Many major evolutionary transitions enabling the diversification of life itself have hinged on mutualistic interactions. " (E. Toby Kiers, Todd M. Palmer, Anthony R. Ives, John F. Bruno, And Judith L. Bronstein)- "Moreover, Under such environmental heterogeneity, We also observe that both mutualism and exploitative interactions can be permanently present in the same population" - Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University----I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that, Not only did Con not use a single, Solitary source (aside from his/her locked Google Docs, The contents of which remain ambiguous), But there is ample scientific evidence rebutting their every claim, Including those that they consider to be the "STRONGEST" case against evolution and the "nail in the coffin. "I would urge Con to provide actual scientific sources for all of his/her claims and also back up the allegation that, "Accepting that evolution is false means accepting that God is real and accepting that God is real makes a claim on your life. "