A Discourse on Evolution (Pro) Vs Creationism (Con)

This adds a certain degree of complexity that makes it easier to organize my later arguments. Ever since the conception of the modern principle of evolution nearly 158 years ago at the hands of Charles Darwin, it has come up against considerable opposition from both a religious and scientific basis. The notion was first conceived through the concept of natural selection:Natural Selection - [Noun] The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. This is essentially a circular approach. Only the fittest survive, and those that survive are the fittest. However, it is of increasing occurrence that individuals come out and challenge the factually supported idea of evolution on a faulty or misinformed basis, managing to persuade officials and citizens alike to to take up a similar stance. I will be providing the factual basis that evolution is rooted in as well of a refutation of the creationist establishment. Structure [Arguments]:[1] Genetics Support Evolution[2] Morphology [3] Fossil Record[4] Similarities of Embryos[5] Induced in Labs[6] Observed in Nature[1] GeneticsGenetics:Genetics - [Noun] The study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics. Darwin had absolutely no concept of genetics when he formed his original theories, so it opens up a whole new realm of potential refutations for evolution. However, most of genetic research provides a meticulous support for this notion. Evolution never invents anything from scratch, it simply improves upon pre-existing substructures. So in this sense we should not only see this trend in morphology, but also in the genome of organisms. DNA [Deoxyribonucleic Acid] is the basic information storage structure for all organisms currently known in science, from the complex to the the singular cell. Translation into RNA sequences results in the overall construction of proteins on the cellular level, proteins used to perform a variety of functions and build tissues. This brings me to my first point on ubiquitous proteins. Cytochrome C is a oxidase:Oxidase - [Noun] An enzyme that promotes the transfer of a hydrogen atom from a particular substrate to an oxygen molecule, forming water or hydrogen peroxide. : that is found in bacteria and the mitochondrion of eukaryotes, and is responsible for the above. There are nearly 10 to the 93rd power EQUALLY functional variants of this protein, yet all organisms share the same essential types. If life arose individually as creationism suggests, there is no reason for these to be even remotely the same, unless the idea of common descent is embraced. Today the average genetic difference between humans is about 0.1%. In comparison, the difference between humans and Chimpanzees and Bonobos is a equitable 1.2%. However, this only accounts for substitutions in nitrogenous bases between shared genetic sequences in humans, bonobos, and chimps. When the entire code is taken into account, the total difference is still a meager 4 - 5%, still a much smaller gap than that shared between chimps and gorillas, or bonobos or gorillas. To this extent, not only are humans closely related to great apes, we are one. This moves to support common descent through more genetic evidence. [2] Morphology Morphology - [Noun] The study of the forms of things, in particular. Genetic traits express themselves in the form of phenotypes, which are determined by genotypes. If common descent is to be held as true, it is a logical outcome that creatures with a common ancestor will express the same adapted substructure [Skeletal, vascular, etc. ]. This raises the question: If creationism is true, why do we see the same bone structure in very different appendages, such as the fins of aquatic mammals, felines, birds, and apes, especially when they are unsuited for some of these functions? Darwin and numerous scientists have concluded that the only reason for shared morphology is homologous characters in genetics, which in turn supports common descent, given traits are passed down through reproduction. Evolution adapts pre-existing structures [Non optimal ones in certain cases] to suit new needs given the environment. Please see the image below: s://preachrr. files. wordpress. com. .. ; alt="Image result for mammalian forelimbs homologous structures" />[3] Fossil RecordThere is a wealth of evidence towards evolution in the fossil record. We can observe very simplistic forms of life fossilized in very very old rocks [>3.5 Billion years ago], and both simplistic and related more complex organisms in younger rocks. Modern mammals alone can be traced back in the fossil record about 200 million years, while gradually growing different in form and size. Fossils that predate these have been found through genetics and morphology to be the closest relatives. This is repetitive, as we can work our way down the line. [4] Similarities Among Embryos:Embryology - [Noun] The branch of biology and medicine concerned with the study of embryos and their development. The study into evolutionary change has recently been propelled into the above field, focusing on the passing of genetic traits and embryonic formation. Many animals look nearly identical in many phases of embryonic development, such as the relation between humans and fish, both having slits for gills. The development eventually diverges in later stages, resulting in distinct species. However, these striking similarities imply common descent, and many studies including morphology and genetics [Previous arguments] tie directly into this field. [5] Induced in a Lab Setting:Recent experiments with microbial life in a laboratory setting have yielded concrete evidence of evolution. This is because microbes are well suited for these variants of experiments. They reproduce very quickly, repeat-ability, the ease through which a population can be upheld, and the ability to be stored for later examination. Wild populations have diverse causes for evolution such as environment and isolation. Experiments endeavor to artificially induce situations in which evolution is expected to take place. These studies are referred to as ALE’s, or adaptive laboratory evolution, have yielded a multitude of results. First and foremost, studies have directly observed entire genomic changes. These changes are found through WGS [Whole genome sequencing]. The typical subject is E. Coli, an organism found in the digestive tract of nearly all warm blooded organisms. In the changes observed, 61% were point nucleotide changes [Swapping of one DNA base], 29% were deletions, 7% were insertions, and 3% were frame-shift. All of these changes resulted in slightly different behavior and traits. Similarly, bacteria grown in higher temperatures and different growth mediums [Most of both were harmful to organisms] yielded a linear acquirement of beneficial mutations. The E. Coli could survive in warmer and chemically potent environments. This supports evolution in the sense that organisms use traits forced upon them by their environment. Beneficial mutations result in a fitter specimen, a specimen that therefore out-competes and survives, passing on the trait. [6] Observations;This argument will prove to be brief, but I wish to list instances where evolution has been observed naturally. [1] HIV[2] Chemically resistant pests that feed on crops[3] Mosquitoes[4] Flu[5] Numerous other organisms. In essence I have shown the basics that prove evolution is FACTUAL, not some ill supported fantasy. I also have yet to play my full hand, as I wish to draw out this debate. Sources:[1] . https://www.astro.umd.edu...[2] . http://humanorigins.si.edu...[3] . https://payseur.genetics.wisc.edu...[4] . http://www.nyu.edu...[5] . http://www.baylor.edu...[6] . http://necsi.edu...[7] . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...