Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

I will present several lines of evidence, all of which were mentioned in that thread. I will not present any evidence from outside of those, even though I have not a few. As my esteemed opponent was rather sparse on specific information or examples, I will only be taking on nested hierarchy and the fossil record, for now. I. Nested Hierarchy is no evidence for Evolution because it is unfalsifiable. As the source my opponent has used in the forum thread, TalkOrigins(TO), speaks of nested hierarchy(NH), I will address nested hierarchy, and in doing so, address twin nested hierarchy (tNH). Firstly, nested hierarchy was never a prediction of Evolution. It is rather a retrospective prediction. [1]Nested Hierarchy is the common explanation for similarities between supposedly related creatures. Homoplasy (otherwise known as convergent evolution) is the explanation for similarities in creatures not supposed to be related. Notice how this leads to an unfalsifiability of evolution. Both contradictory notions are combined under the all-powerful guidance of evolution. As my opponent has not yet begun, I am unable to refute him. (I won’t refute the hypothetical example contained in the thread here) However, before we continue to the next argument, I will state a few things. As noted above, anything that cannot fit into a nested hierarchy but appear similar are rationalized as convergent evolution. There is, however, no constraint on convergent evolution, aka. It can be used to rationalize any similarities. This makes it unfalsifiable and as such, not scientific. Another interesting point can be made here. Man-made machines can be arranged into nested hierarchies, even though such a hierarchy would be patently false. “Let us, for instance, assign all of the petroleum-burning machines into a kingdom. Of this, the gasoline-burning ones form a subkingdom. The rubber-wheeled vehicles form a phylum. Of this, conventional automobiles are a class. Each type of car (2-door hatchback, 4-door hatchback, 2-door sunroof, etc. ) forms a family. Finally, the manufacturer’s designations make up the genus (e. g. Toyota) and species (e. g. Toyota Tercel). Using selected mechanical components, a nested hierarchy can also be inferred from the structures of wheeled vehicles, whether expressed as a character matrix (Table 1), or cladogram (Figure 3). ” [2] (This can be edited to twin nested hierarchy)That being said, it is now obvious that the idea that nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution is non-existent, to put it mildly. If my opponent’s examples of nested hierarchy has withstood falsification, then so has my “example” of machines. II. The fossil record neither disproves nor proves evolution. Now I move on to this second interesting point. My opponent has provided no information on how the fossil record supports evolution in detail in the thread, hence I will be attacking the idea that there is such a thing as fossil succession all through the fossil record generally. Before we go into that, however, we must note the same problem that plagues the nested hierarchy also plagues the geologic column. How so? Well, quite simply, fossils are frequently, to this day, found in all sorts of unexpected stratas. How is this explained? Well, the range for that organism is simply revised. There is no sort of falsification possible. This means that the interpretation of the fossil record is unscientific. If a fossil thought the descendant of an ancestor was found in an older strata, the ancestor is deemed to have been a “ghost organism” throughout the previous millions of years. Fossil ranges are regularly expanded upward and downward the geologic timescale. [3] For example, all fossils in the “Lazarus Taxa” have been expanded to the present, while vertebrae have been pushed into the Cambrian (Which is evidence against evolution, but I will not go into it, not in this round. ). Pollen has also been found 1.3 billion years before pollen-making plants supposedly evolved. This contradicts the progression supposedly found in the fossil record. [4] What happens now? Is this an answer to the chicken and egg problem? What I have just shown is that the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is the product of circular reasoning and unfalsifiable. I will now address the issue of increasing complexity, or of evolution as defined for this debate and how it relates to the fossil record. To do so, I will quote from [4]. “Did natural selection drive organisms onward and steadily upward, toward ever greater complexity, because being more complex improved their chances of survival? Researchers have always assumed the answer was yes. ”“. .. the data tell a different story: evolution does not necessarily drive life toward greater complexity. As organisms evolve, they are just as likely to shed complexity as to gain it--at least insofar as biologists can measure it. .. ”As the study described after in the article showed, complexity actually decreased in fossil organisms. So now we have reached a paradox of sorts. Even should we discard the data about pollen and changes in fossil age ranges, we cannot discard the data about complexity. It is too complete and compelling. This situation forces us to conclude that complexity could not even have begun in the first place! That is, the amount of complexity would remain in equilibrium, which would defeat any support for evolution in the fossil record. As such, we see clearly that the sort of change desired to turn bacterium to homo sapiens is non-existent. I have much more to add, but I’ll let my opponent at least voice his opinions first. .. (I have decided for this debate to reference things in a more proper way, meaning I’m not posting links. )1. ReMine J. , The Biotic Message p.350.2. Woodmorappe J. , Walking whales, nested hierarchy, and Chimaeras: Do they exist? Journal of Creation 16(1):111–119 April 2002 (ref 6).3. Oard M. Are fossils ever found in the wrong place? Creation 32(3):14–15 June 20104. Stainforth, R. M. Occurrence of pollen and spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana, Nature 210(5033):292–294, 16 April 1966.5. Oliwenstein L. Onward and Upward? Discover Magazine, Tuesday, June 01, 1993.