God vs. Evolution

I think that the very title of this debate is disingenuous, so I will debate it as if it were creationism vs. evolution. As many people will tell you, they take a more grey area in between, closer to intelligent design, or evolution through god. Here are some definitions as provided by my Freshman Biology Textbook flashcards which I still have. Species: Any group of organisms with the ability to produce fertile offspring among one another. (Note: This definition is not perfect, as group A might be able to reproduce with group B, but although group B can reproduce with group C, group A cannot) [-1] Evolution: The scientific theory that explains how speciation occurs, and how simple life forms can turn into more complex life forms over time (Note: This requires several conditions to be met, which is why people believe humans do not continue to evolve. For a list, follow this link, which gives each in the first few pages, as well as detailed descriptions. [0]) Evolution does not necessarily oppose the idea of a deity. A great many people, even many Christians (such as Catholics) accept both god and evolution. As well, atheists (though underrepresented) have some number who do not accept evolution. Therefore, the entire premise of this debate is flawed. I simply happen to be both an atheist and a proponent of evolution. However, evolution does counter the idea of a creationist deity, and refutes an idea of biblical literalism. Now, since evolution is the currently accepted as the best scientific model for how simple life forms like bacteria can change into the complex life forms we see today, an explanation necessary as there are fossil eras with no humans or any significant number of modern day species (some species stay relatively unchanged through the ages due to an environment that may stay stagnant. However this is not true for the majority of species). Here is a chart that shows that we have a large number of species that existed at one time, while modern day species only have existed for a relatively short period of time, making an explanation for how modern species came about from ancient species a necessity.[1] So, an explanation of species is a necessity, and I will show some evidences for evolution. I definitely do not have enough characters to go through all of them, so here is a Wikipedia page with the list of all of them, and a brief description. Note: This is not my evidence, but simply a compiled list. [2] I will discuss some of the most important evidences that I feel are most compelling, and simple enough for someone to understand without years of education, which I, and most of us lack, because let's face it, evolution is not an easy concept to understand. 1. Vestigial structures Vestigial structures are structures that are not necessary, but occur in our bodies. They are remnants of things that once had a use, but have long since become tied with a less significant use (or a placeholder, like the human tailbone, which now has a lot of 'wires' around it), only were used by certain branches of the ancestor who had it, or became completely useless. We each have many organs which are deemed useless, or even with our modern technology, we have not determined a use for. The appendix and the tonsils both have no uses that have been so far determined. Both are only significant in that sometimes we must remove them if they become inflamed or infected. There is an example of a non-sexual species, a specific type of lizard, that still atempts sexual reproduction even though they are all female and can produce offspring without males. The fossil records and DNA evidence suggests that they come from a sexual reproducing ancestor, and have not lost some of those sex drives, though the need for them is gone. Some whales still have leg bones from an ancestor of theirs, though they serve no purpose, as a whale has no hind legs. [3] 2. Observed speciation Many times I am told that we have not observed evolution. This is simply not true. While yes, we have not seen a dog give birth to a cat, we have witnessed animals crossing the species line. Many times we have been able to create flies that are unable to reproduce with one another, and are therefore two different species. Another definition of evolution is simply a change in a species. If you have ever heard about all the different kinds a flu, and wondered why you have to keep getting different immunizations, evolution is to blame. Some of these are needed because new mutations arise, and are resistant to the previous drugs that we used, or changed enough so that the previous immunizations no longer affected it. Leprosy was treated at one point with a drug called Dapsone. However, it evolved to become resistant to this treatment, and we had to develop other cures. Our understanding of how the species of Leprosy reacted and changed has helped us treat Leprosy and many other diseases that have become resistant. Now, I am certain you wonder how minor changes or flies or salamanders failing to reproduce with one another affect actual change in kinds. Take minor changes, as in, tail getting shorter, or head growing bigger, and allow those changes to affect over millions of years. These changes will be massive. Significant changes over long periods of time will only affect in small ways in a short period of time. I think Richard Dawkins explained this well in his book, The Magic of Reality. Imagine you took pictures of all your parents for all the time that life existed on earth. your great x (I don't know the number) grandparents. at one end, and you at the other. If you take out pictures next to each other, or even near, the minor differences will be overshadowed by individual differences. Even a few thousand years, and you will notice only small species change. If you look back far enough, you will start to seem major differences. [4] [5] Unfortunately, I do not have the characters to talk about fossil records or genetics, two of the strongest evidences for evolution. I felt like they were less important, as those need the least explaining, and they are the most evident. Now, I would like to discuss the difference between scientific theory, scientific law, scientific model, and a normal theory. Now a normal theory is nothing more then a guess. It is a synonym for a hunch or a hypothesis. However, a scientific theory is one that is similar to scientific fact. Scientific fact doesn't really exist, as there is nothing we can be 100% sure about. All we can say is that all evidence we have points to it, and it is the most likely answer that we currently have. Gravity is a law and a theory, and evolution is a theory. A theory in the scientific sense, is no different from a law, except that a theory is still accepting new evidences. A scientific theory is not absolute. We are still learning more about evolution, and as the period of observation we have increases, so does our observational evidence. And it still changes. While evolution is regarded as close to fact as anything can be by the vast majority of the scientific community, there are still internal debates. Some debate rages over certain ancestral chains, the properties of missing fossils that have yet to be discovered, and whether natural selection plays the largest role, or whether other factors are important as well. The scientific theory of evolution, is rarely debated as a whole by the scientific community, though internal debates are common. [-1] http://www.pbs.org... [0] http://www.petergodfreysmith.com... [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.livescience.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (no exact quotes used)