Really, I'm debating a Christian (probably an evangelist) through email who just emailed me back after reading my response to his religious websites online article against the "atheist" agenda.  He took long enough to reply so I don't remember what all I even said to him...lol.  However, he asked me to provide him with one single shred of irrefutable evidence for evolution.  I gave him some examples that he will surely denounce.  But I'm wondering, on what grounds can the evidence for evolution even be contested?  I'd really like to know.  Am I wrong to think the evidence for evolution is irrefutable?  What say you?

Views: 394

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Jason,

 

Jerry A Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, says that the theory of evolution is as accepted as any scientific fact. In scientific circles, it is as accepted as the germ theory of disease and the existence of atoms.

 

Creationists point to "gaps" in the fossil record as "evidence" that evolution is not true, but they conveniently ignore the considerable weight of evidence outside paleontology, from botany and anatomy to genetics and molecular biology.

 

All of this evidence has logical consistency, which the bible does not. Or, where the scientific evidence in favor of evolution DOESN'T have logical consistency, science at least has the mechanisms in place to improve our understanding.

 

So, yes, I think it's irrefutable to someone who doesn't feel threatened by the truth.

This might help:

 

http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2009/04/15-evolutionary-g...

 

and click on the link in line 3 for a pdf.

Excellent material :-) well put togather.
There are NO missing links. The word “link” refers to a chainlike structure. Creationists visualise Evolution like a ladder with humans at the top and one or more of the missing ladder rungs equating to Missing links.

However Evolution does not follow a progressive path in the sense that it is linear like a ladder.

We need to keep the “Tree of Life” image in our mind. Each species is an offshoot of a major branch. So there may be a “missing leaf” instead of a missing link. However we can still see the overall picture even if some of the leaves are missing. It is still a complete tree. I suppose extinct species could be likened to missing offshoots – the major biological branch is still there and will grow another one.

I often use this imagery before I start explaining Evolution to a theist. In a academic sense it may not be strictly correct but it is good enough for debating because it is an easy visual to understand.  Feel free anyone to improve or correct the imagery if you like.

In the tree of life analogy, wouldn't a "missing link" be more like a missing branch than a missing leaf?

 

Not that it doesn't exist, just that we havn't found it. I think a missing branch(or segment of a branch anyway) more accurately follows the analogy. A missing leaf would describe a species that has not yet been discovered which is at the end of its path through the tree (which is pretty difficult to determine).

To anyone who does not have ideological opposition to the concept, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The only debate currently going on with science over evolution is on the fine details of how it happened, not if it happened.

It is a fact. If you you get it's just a theory bullshit you can give him the short list and see how his life would be going along without some of these "just theories" http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Science/list-of-theories.html


There is no "single shred" of evidence for evolution. There's a whole ton of evidence, and it requires some bit of knowledge and intelligence to put it together. It's easy enough for anyone to play dumb and claim any part of evidence of evolution doesn't prove the theory.

Scientists from all over the world think that life came to earth in form of bacterias included in meteorites.

 

Have a look:

 

http://www.scinexx.de/wissen-aktuell-316-2004-02-12.html

and:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6660045/Bacteria-fr...

Their fossilised remains have been found in the rock, which was blasted out of Mars 16 million years ago as the solar system was forming.

The meteorite, called Allen Hills 84001, made headlines in 1996 after fossils were found in it. Scientists believed they were bacteria from Earth that
contaminated the rock while it lay in the frozen wastes.

But a Nasa report now says there is strong evidence they originated on Mars, according to The Sun.

Dr Emily Baldwin, deputy editor of the UK's Astronomy Now magazine, said: "Many scientists argued that what looked like fossils in the meteorite were really
caused by the explosive event, such as an asteroid impact, that blasted the
rock out of Mars in the first place.

"But the Nasa team is now saying they have proved that they could not have been produced by the blast itself.


"If the features turn out to have an extraterrestrial, biological origin and were not formed during the 13,000 years the meteorite spent lying on
Earth, this will have profound implications for our understanding of how
life evolved in the solar system."

Prof Colin Pillinger, of the Open University, who was behind Britain's ill-fated Beagle 2 probe to the planet that was lost on Christmas Day 2003,
said: "This is good quality work and more compelling evidence to add to
the mix. These guys have been plugging away at this for years. It is a very
careful study by very reputable people."

The Nasa study, led by Kathie Thomas-Keprta, found carbonate discs and tiny magnetite crystals inside the space rock. Scientists were able to use high
resolution electron microscopes that were not available 13 years ago.

They concluded "unusual chemical and physical properties" in the meteorite were "intimately associated within and throughout these
carbonate disks". That, they said, was evidence of interaction with
water on Mars more than 3.5 billion years ago.

Nasa is expected to announce the findings, from its Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Texas, later this week.

I have read about this and agree it is a possibility.....this still doesnt explain how life came to be.... just how life came to be on planet Earth.

 

Edit: it is also possible that life began on both Earth and Mars and was transported between the two via meteorites. We would essentially then have two trees of life from which evolution occurred.

RSS

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 2 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 5 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service