Evolutionary Evidence for bdavis

Introduction

The following Hub is a response to a comment made by user bdavis regarding Evolution and Intelligent Design. To read the full conversation in proper context I encourage you to visit bdavis' hub and read my comments and his responses here: http://hubpages.com/hub/Professing-Themselves-To-Be-Wise-they-Became-Fools

In order to show you what I'm responding to I will repost the entire comment here:

bdavis's comment:

"What you refuse to see is your own willful ignorance in the rush to defend the sacred cow of evolution. You have still offered none of the proof you claim to have tons of.

If it is so factually based, why keep the Intelligent Design theory out of the public schools. If it is such an established fact as you say, then it should be able to hold it's own in a public debate forum.

Many years ago the tables were turned and it was a new theory of evolution that was outside the classroom asking for equal time. I remember also when Merv Griffin used to have his own T.V. show somewhat like Oprah. He interviewed either Either Julian Huxley or Aldeus (not sure of the spelling here) Merv Griffin asked him about evolution and why it was that science jumped on it's bandwagon so quickly. To which he was answered. "...The idea of God interfered with our sexual Mores."

You know, The Supreme Court, while it has a better track record of making law than it does making right law, even they got this one right when they ruled evolution a faith based religion. Evolution is based on presuppositions or a world view the same as even Christianity. The latter holding the presupposition which is based on the word of the one who was there in the beginning. While evolution maintains everything just happened and poof we are all supposed to just jump through the hurdle and believe it. Not to mention the fact that every "prehistoric man that evolutionists have thrown out there to maintain some kind of plausibility has been discovered and admitted to being a fraud. Pro Magnon (?), Pre-Cambrian, Nebraska man, all of them. As for your claim that the fossil record indeed does show the transitional forms, say like a reptile with a developing wing or the like, write a hub and post the picture (s) Then you will have credibility.

Now my friend, I will be returning to class this next Monday and this may be my last post in this hub that I will have the time to respond to. But do drop me a note when you have posted your own hub complete with the proof you claim to have regarding evolution. Also include the picture evidence of the transitional fossils.

Have a good life and enjoy

Please read my hub "A rich man's warning"

Best wishes

Response 1

bdavis wrote:

"What you refuse to see is your own willful ignorance in the rush to defend the sacred cow of evolution."

My response:

Evolution is no sacred cow and in almost every field of biology there are ways in which it could be falsified. The reason I defend it is a bit more complex. Let me first stress, however, that there is a scientific consensus on Evolution, it is one of the strongest theories in modern science and is undisputed by the actual scientists who study it (although they may disagree on individual aspects or certain research). So I do not have to defend Evolution, the evidence for Evolution already does that.

I encourage bdavis to look into the evidence for Evolution and I do not mean merely reading Creationist websites, I mean actually heading out to a Museum of natural history or spending a few days with a semi-reliable source such as Wikipedia or a science book. In this age of information one could probably even dig up dozens of scholarly journals and actual published research on the subject of Evolution just with a few clicks of the mouse. The actual evidence speaks far more eloquently than I ever could on the subject of Evolution.

My reason for defending it, most simply put, is that I used to be a Creationist. I was raised in a fundamentalist household and until I was about 19 I was an Old Earth Creationist. It wasn't until years later that I actually looked at Evolution's side of the argument. Oh sure I pretended I'd looked into Evolution's side of the argument but that was while being spoon-fed from Creationist sites which I put far too much trust in. The evidence for Evolution is ALL there and is extremely solid, but don't take my word for it, again go out and do research.

Response 2

bdavis wrote:

"You have still offered none of the proof you claim to have tons of."

My response:

Previously I had posted links to a wikipedia page about horse evolution in which numerous transitional species are named. I also mentioned Tiktaalik (the photo at the top of the page is a Tiktaalik fossil) another well known and obvious evolutionary transition. Am I to assume you've rejected these out of hand? What about the genes I mentioned that help Tibetans survive at high altitudes that people living at sea level DO NOT HAVE? Have you also rejected these out of hand?

Let me also reiterate that I'm not an authority of evolution (I'm not an evolutionary scientist), finding the evidence for it might take research on your part. I do not have tons of proof for evolution - science does.

Intelligent Design in Schools?

bdavis wrote:

"If it is so factually based, why keep the Intelligent Design theory out of the public schools."

My response:


Because intelligent design violates the first amendment separation of church and state. Intelligent Design is a religiously motivated movement, it is not science; it is definitely not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Merv Griffin?

I'm going to skip bdavis's comments about Merv Griffin as I couldn't care less what people on TV thought about Evolution decades and decades ago. Suffice it to say that we've learned an awful lot more in support of Evolution than they knew back then and even then it was a strong enough theory to wind up where it belongs - in science classes.


The Supreme Court

bdavis wrote:

"You know, The Supreme Court, while it has a better track record of making law than it does making right law, even they got this one right when they ruled evolution a faith based religion. Evolution is based on presuppositions or a world view the same as even Christianity."

My response:

No it isn't. I was a Creationist at one time bdavis, I was presupposed AGAINST Evolution and I spent time on all the wrong websites. It wasn't until much later that I actually looked into the science side for Evolution and found that the Creationists I'd trusted as truthful Christian brothers of mine had been liars.

Evolution is based on evidence found in genetics, the fossil record, phylogeny, and morphology among other things.

The Supreme Court does not get to decide science.

Even the court FIGHTING evolution is the legendary Scopes Trial agree with me that Evolution is NOT predicated upon a preset faith position:

"We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory." Scopes v. State 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).

That's from the scopes monkey trial which made it unlawful to teach Evolution, yet even then the court is admitting that there isn't a faith which prohibits OR AFFIRMS the theory of Evolution (ie Evolution is not a religion).

I attempted to find any quote or statement or ruling in which the actual Supreme Court of the entire nation called Evolution a religion. My guess is that if such a ruling exists it has been overturned or is woefully out of date.

POOF?

bdavis wrote:

"While evolution maintains everything just happened and poof..."

My Response:

Evolution maintains no such thing. Evolution maintains that gradual genetic change in a population occurs and that such change, after many many many generations, is what leads to speciation (the divergence of one species into another). Gradual genetic change is hardly "everything just happened".

Hominid Evolution

bdavis wrote:

"Not to mention the fact that every "prehistoric man that evolutionists have thrown out there to maintain some kind of plausibility has been discovered and admitted to being a fraud. Pro Magnon (?), Pre-Cambrian, Nebraska man, all of them."

Nebraska man was shown to be a hoax by the scientific community and they chastised the scientist who hastily claimed to have found a new species. Within ten years a retraction had been printed. Also keep in mind that this was in 1917-1927. You don't honestly think that modern research into hominid evolution is at all hampered by a nearly century old mistake that was corrected already do you? There are great many hominid fossils which are not frauds.

What of homo ergaster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster

Homo rudolfensis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis

And MANY others none of which have ever been shown to be frauds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid_evolution


Homo Ergaster

Homo Rudolfensis

Transitional Forms

bdavis wrote:

"As for your claim that the fossil record indeed does show the transitional forms, say like a reptile with a developing wing or the like, write a hub and post the picture (s) "

You want a winged reptile? You're serious? That's all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

Or if you'd prefer you can have Microraptor, who isn't a reptile but is a transition between dinosaurs and birds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

What about Archeopteryx which shared some characteristics with modern birds (such as feathers and wings) but also shared many with dromaeosaurids (a type of dinosaur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx


Archeopteryx Fossil

Ambulocetus

Evolution of Whales

Or what of the Evolution of whales from land dwelling animals to sea dwelling ones which is evident in the fossil record?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution

Maiacetus

dorudon

Xiphiacetus, an early dolphin

I'm quite positive that that WILL NOT satisfy you because you already have your mind made up. Also let me reiterate that even without a single transitional fossil (we have dozens of them) we'd be able to prove Evolution by genetics alone.

Conclusions

I don't need to offer evidence for evolution, science has already done that. A days worth of reading on wikipedia or Talk Origins could provide you with all the evidence you need, or a visit to any major museum of natural history. Evolution is no more a sacred cow than Gravity is, both have mountains of evidence in support of them. Evolution is also falsifiable and could have been proven false but it never has been, every shred of evidence in modern biology only strengthens it.

You can choose to ignore this or you can decide to do the research and see for yourself. Evolution is evident, there's no reason to deny it in favor of a myth. If God truly did create the Earth why do you deny what is evident about how life evolved upon it? Why must God's mechanism of creation be magic instead of Evolution? One does not need to give up their faith entirely to accept Evolution, one merely needs to set aside the myth and look at reality.

Thank you for reading.

Comments 2 comments

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Beliefs are so hard to change even when faced with a preponderance of evidence. bdavis will not spend the effort it takes to eliminate his Pavlovian responses. He has been trained to be a "good" believer is burning bushes, sticks turning into snakes, and the invisible being sending himself to earth in a visible form only to be tortured to death to "save" humans from his own magical puppets.

A well presented hub, non the less! voted up


Paladin_ profile image

Paladin_ 5 years ago from Michigan, USA

I'm no evolutionary biologist, either, but I am often ASTOUNDED by the level of ignorance of evolutionary theory displayed by so many creationists. You can practically recite, word for word, the cut and paste arguments from creationist websites they repeatedly offer in debates like this.

Something I often point out in these discussions is the vastly different approaches taken by pro-evolution websites and pro-creation/ID websites. I first ask people which source they would consider more reliable, and more committed to the truth: one that offers you only one side of an issue, or one that offers both?

I then encourage people to visit both pro-evolution websites (including the Talkorigins archive and Panda's thumb, two of the best) and pro-creation websites, and count the number of links to the OTHER side of the debate.

Talkorigins, for example, has the BIGGEST list of creationist websites (literally hundreds!) on the web -- larger even than any creationist site. Other pro-evolution websites also offer a variety of links to pro-creation sites.

Visit any creation website, and you'll not find a single link to any evolution site. Not one.

After people have surveyed these sites, I ask them to reconsider my question: who is more committed to the truth -- someone who offers you both sides of the debate, or someone who offers you only one?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    How Evolution Adds New Information

    Why Evolution is Widely Accepted

    Evolution is Not a Religion

    Aronra on the subject of Transitional Species

    More by this Author


    Click to Rate This Article
    working