Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

I also thank readers for your interest, and hope you will find our conversation stimulating and interesting. My opponent’s misunderstandings are not limited to what it means for a round to be “for acceptance only”. A number of things become immediately apparent: 1) “Evidence” is not the same as “proof”, which is a word which more closely describes the idea my opponent is trying to equivocate. In the resolution which we agreed to, I had merely claimed that scientific evidence supports macro evolution, not that it proves it. Evidence is like the bloody knife that is found in a suspect’s trunk. Quite opposite from what my opponent claims, there can be other explanations for why something might be – maybe someone planted that knife, or maybe it turns out to be someone else’s blood. Each piece of evidence is only one piece of the puzzle, and only if the pieces fit together correctly do you have the kind of case that reasonably puts someone in jail, or the kind of theory that has scientific merit. 2) Speaking of definitions and equivocation, it is a common creationist tactic to equivocate the informal layman meaning for “theory” which means something close to “guess” or “hunch” and substitute that for the scientific meaning for “theory”, which is very different, and requires an empirically tested hypothesis which stands up to extreme rigor and has predictive value. Think of the Theory of General Relativity, which is similarly “unproven” despite the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence supporting it, including the nuclear bombs that were created by using it. Please do not allow my opponent to confuse you on this. Contrary to his claim, there is actually a great deal of evidence supporting evolution, which I will summarize throughout this debate. 3) The Theory of Evolution does not address the existence or non-existence of any gods, including YHWH. While I admit that I personally do happen to be an atheist, and I do not find evidence for YHWH to be compelling, I also want to point out that atheism is not a prerequisite for understanding evolution. Many evolutionists are Christians who do not see any conflict with scientific observation and their understanding of their God. The existence of God is a topic for another day; I will not be attempting to prove or disprove that YHWH exists, and I will not even dispute whether or not he is responsible for creating the first organism. I could happily grant that He is, and still it would not at all affect evolution, which is only concerned with life reproducing other life. Abiogenesis deals with life springing up out of non-life, and is therefore a separate (and less well supported) idea which is distinct from evolution. The Evidence Wikipedia has a very well developed article on the topic of the evidence of common descent. It has 160 sources last I checked, many of them scholarly articles referencing experimentation and empirical evidence for evolution. I will delve into greater detail as the debate progresses; unfortunately this round I found myself spending time to address issues that my opponent has raised prematurely. For now I will provide the general types of evidence we will be considering, again, courtesy of Wikipedia [1]. If anyone is interested in watching a very informative video, I’ll provide the link to that as well, though I do not expect voters to weigh it as part of their decision. [2] 1) Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry: Recent advances in genetics allow us to perform phylogenetic reconstruction, and trace back ancestry by following the progression of mutations. This method has allowed us to confirm, among many other things, that there was at least some interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. [3] 2) Evidence from comparative anatomy: atavisms are evolutionary throwbacks, and examples would include hind-legged structures in snakes and whales, or wings on flightless birds like ostriches, which may still serve some function or use but are leftover structures from ancestors who used those structures differently. 3) Evidence from paleontology: missing links have been found, but the fossil record is only one line of evidence, and in my mind not even the most compelling 4) Evidence from geographical distribution: different lines of organism evolving in similar conditions but disparate locations will often develop similar structures and characteristics independently, but will be completely different species. Australia is very interesting to evolutionists with lots of unique creatures and adaptations to be found, because it has had a very separate evolutionary path after its tectonic plate separated it from the rest of the world much earlier and more decisively than the Old World and New World were separated. 5) Evidence from natural selection: there has been extensive experimentation on this topic, including a 25 year study of E. Coli bacteria by Richard Lenski. This will be one of the focal points of my argument since I find it really fascinating. 6) Evidence from observed speciation: this is the process by which new species arise, and they are arising all the time. There are, for example, 350,000 described species of beetles. [4] 7) Evidence from artificial selection: humans have been using evolution to produce domesticated plants and animals for a long time. Breeding big wolves with big wolves over many generations will eventually turn wolves into animals like the Mastiff. Breed little wolves with little wolves and over a few thousand years pass, and you get things like Chihuahuas. 8) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration: computers are now powerful enough to simulate complex iterative processes like evolution, and have been used to demonstrate results that are consistent with the kind observed in laboratories. [5] 1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) 3) . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 4) James K. Liebherr and Joseph V. McHugh in Resh, V. H. & R. T. Cardé (Editors) 2003. Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press. 5) Simulated Evolution Gets Complex. Trnmag. com (2003-05-08). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.