That’s what Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these twelve points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.

Note that Evolution does NOT indicate how the first life arose; that’s a question of Autocatalytic Biochemistry, and largely dependant on the definition used to distinguish “alive” from “not-alive”. Also, Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture… But without evidence, they aren’t science.

Other people’s opinions, presented in the form of quotes, are not evidence against the theory of Evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions which turn out to be false. So lets’ stick to the facts.

I mean, you are talking about every single one of the top scientists (biologists) in the world saying that through their personal study and research evolution is right. Some of them are even religious- I point you to the very famous and extremely intelligent, catholic Ken Miller and the previous Director of the Vatican Observatory Father Dr George Coyne. Then, to name a few, Prof. Dawkins, Prof. Steven Hawking, Prof. Robert Winston, Sir David Attenborough, Prof. Jerry Coyne. All of the Royal Society (UK). These men are lying to us all or are collectively, along with their many counterparts, mistaken, about the thing they are experts on. The reason I have difficulty accepting Answers in Genesis is because it is pioneered by a man who has a degree in applied science… he doesn’t have any specialist training or reading in evolution for him to comment! His reading, is layman reading on the topic. You wouldn’t let someone without a medical degree make a medical decision about you- why should we let a man who doesn’t have an evolutionary biology degree comment on evolutionary biology?

So you’d exclude those scientists who have actually done the most work and possess the greatest expertise in their respective fields. Right. That makes sense.

Sorry. I never editted that. You’re right. That would be ridiculous. Forgive me. I’ll respond soon.

right away I would like to say that my main contention is truly with the fact that tens of millions of fossils have been found and the number of transitional forms is not even pushing the hundreds

What else would you expect? The ratio of (and this is using overly gross simplification of terms for overall better comprehension) transitional fossils to ’solid’ fossils is always going to be lower, just like the Theory of Evolution predicts.
And yep, that is another prediction of the Theory which matches observations. Yay science!

As far as the ratio, when you have the government take over the curriculum in the way that it has, it’s only natural that evolution would be the popular view.

Now you’re just sounding paranoid.

because it is actually a significant minority in the field of science that are creationists.

If it is any indication, AiG tried to make a list of scientists that support the idea of creationism. Someone did a fascinating examination of that list a while back, seems the vast majority of the people on it have actually no working knowledge of the fields tied to the Theory of Evolution (being things like Mathematicians instead). Extremely few biologists or geologists (or various other related fields) on there.
In response to AiG’s list, a little thing called ‘Project Steve’ was started up which listed all the scientists whose name is Steve who support the Theory of Evolution. Now try to guess which list is noticeably longer.

I would make mine exclusive only to those not possessing P.h.d.’s

So you’d exclude those scientists who have actually done the most work and possess the greatest expertise in their respective fields. Right. That makes sense.

Without going into huge detail (simply because it’s not worth the time since it seems clear you have yet to do any actual independent research/reading):

Geology: Dating techniques all check out, the dozen or so independent techniques used. Tectonic plates check out.
Biology: The Theory of Evolution forms the cornerstone for this scientific discipline. It has often been noted that Biology only makes sense through the lens of the Theory of Evolution. Basically everything in Biology comes from it.
Palaeontology: Sometimes tied to Geology but all independent dating techniques check out nicely. Predicted forms are found in predicted layers of strata and so on.
Genetics: From the fusion of the predicted chromosome in humans (yay scientific predictions!), genetic similarities between species and genetic markers that can traced back through ancestry … yeah, pretty conclusive.
Language: The evolution of human language is quite well recorded, following the known migration patterns of humans as they spread out across the globe over the past few tens of thousands of years. Records of communications (painted, scratched, carved, etc) all match age predictions.
Species Distribution: The diversity of species across the planet matches the predictions made the Theory of Evolution. On the other hand, they do not match creationism very well at all – especially the YECs variant thereof.

Helium leaching

Wow. Been a while since I’ve seen anyone bring this old turkey up.
This is based on the work of Humphrey’s, whose work has since been found to be fault due to bad sample selection. His report was full of errors both mathematical and procedural and is not take seriously at all by the scientific community. Henke (2005) in particular tore the report to shreds.
In short: It utterly failed peer review (which is there to catch out shoddy work, such as this) and is not considered valid.

Paleontology: The lack of transitional forms, whether you can name a few or not, there is an overwhelming lack of transitional forms.

See above. And that was just a quick list, just the smallest of samples.

Biology and genetics: The major differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies

More information needed, be more specific. Peer reviewed research on this would be nice, for example.

and the complexity of even the simplest cells.

Argument from incredulity.

You observe a variance in a creature and that is proof that Hydrogen, given enough time, becomes a living, breathing, intelligent human being.

It seems you are confusing the Theories of Abiogenesis and Evolution.
Once again, I suggest you do more reading.

But when species “change” to accommodate changes in their environment, there is no reason to believe that it continues changing until it is something altogether different when it has already developed the necessary structures for survival.

Who says? Environments are constantly changing, just look at the difference of Earth between now and just a couple of thousand years ago both in terms of climate and geography. As such, species are adapting all the time. Some succeed and some don’t.
In short, the criteria for survival are constantly changing so species either continue adapting (or find a specific niche, such as crocodiles) or die.

Now the fact they developed a cecal valve to slow down the food for the fermenting process is amazing but apparently part of its natural functions or else it would have, again, died.

That is the point; the species did not have the capacity/possessing of a cecal valve. It adapted and gained one in order to handle it’s new diet. That is evolution working away, just as the Theory of Evolution predicts.

Unless you know of some evidences contradictory to creation.

Depends on which of the numerous variants you happen to subscribe to. Be more specific. Here’s a clue: the YECs variant is right out.
On the other hand, there is certainly no evidence FOR any sort of creationism that I am aware of. Certainly none that has managed to pass the peer review process.

I’m not going down that road unless you offer some real evidences that can be observed.

Again, what sort do you want?
A pretty complete record of horse evolution? Got it. Love those fossils.
A pretty complete record of whale evolution? Got it. Love those fossils.
A reasonably complete record of human evolution? Yeah, got that too. Love those fossils and genetic back tracking.

Thank you Matt. This is a list that I can look into. Of course, right away I would like to say that my main contention is truly with the fact that tens of millions of fossils have been found and the number of transitional forms is not even pushing the hundreds. I’m saying that not as an after thought being that you have given some examples, but that is what I have maintained throughout this post. I will look at your examples and respond later.

Sadly, that does seem to be the case. I hate to do the numbers game but you brought it up; what percentage, do you think, of the scientific community hold with the Theory of Evolution? Last estimates were up around 99.4% or so.

Again, it doesn’t matter how many say it, if it is not true then it is not true. As far as the ratio, when you have the government take over the curriculum in the way that it has, it’s only natural that evolution would be the popular view. Don’t flatter yourself though, because it is actually a significant minority in the field of science that are creationists. Your number is probably based on an exclusive number of scientists. I would make mine exclusive only to those not possessing P.h.d.’s. You would find a different percentage then.

What evidence would you like? Geology? Check. Biology? Check. Palaeontology? Check. Genetics? Check. Language? Check. Species distribution? Check. Should I continue?

No. I would like you to go back and show me how those all check out to you. Matt, I’m not saying that you’re stupid or that people with P.h.d.’s haven’t asserted that in the areas geology, biology, paleontology, genetics,etc. that evolution has been proven. I’m saying that they only assert that evolution has been proven. So you asserting it is kinda the same thing. If you could, maybe throw up some real hardcore evidence and finish me off. I mean after all you are a wellspring of information spewing forth knowledge constantly. I’m just asking for one shred of evidence that specie boundaries were crossed.

Such as? You seem to be talking a lot but not actually presenting any actual evidence of any sort at all.

Well, it is my blog and I’m the one asking for evidence but as a concession my friend, I’ll humor you. In the area of geology: Helium leaching showing a date of not more than 14,000 years in the same zircons that show between 800 million years to 1.5 billion years when using the radiometric dating method when helium leaching is observable. Paleontology: The lack of transitional forms, whether you can name a few or not, there is an overwhelming lack of transitional forms. Biology and genetics: The major differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and the complexity of even the simplest cells. I believe this is enough information to leave you unable to compete. If these kill the theory, we can then take the creationist approach to the other evidences which don’t contradict creation. Unless you know of some that do. But that is the evidence I’m asking for you to post.

What? You mean a species changed to accommodate changes in it’s environment?
Hold on, isn’t that the driving factor behind the Theory of Evolution?

You see. You make the same mistake that most evolutionists do. You observe a variance in a creature and that is proof that Hydrogen, given enough time, becomes a living, breathing, intelligent human being. Creationists have always believed in micro evolution and natural selection. But when species “change” to accommodate changes in their environment, there is no reason to believe that it continues changing until it is something altogether different when it has already developed the necessary structures for survival.

You’re not thinking it through. How did it change it’s diet if it was not physically able to handle it? The species probably could, with great difficulty, so environmental factors (such as food availability) became a driving factor in the species adapting and thus evolving to better suit it’s changed conditions. And that’s what the Theory of Evolution is all about.

Not physically able to handle it? Um. Did you read the same article I did? If they were not truly physically able to handle it they would have died. So now we can base it on fact that they were able to handle it. Now the fact they developed a cecal valve to slow down the food for the fermenting process is amazing but apparently part of its natural functions or else it would have, again, died.

(snip a whole bunch of suppositions which have no actual evidence behind them and certainly no science)

Um. You are pretty thick. If anything in my suppositions were unmerited then that is funny that you even hold the view of evolution. All there is is suppositions. Unless you know of some evidences contradictory to creation. That’s what I’ve been asking for.

And macro-evolution occurs when a lot of micro-evolution occurs over a long period of time. Lots of small changes = a big change over time.
It’s not a hard concept to understand.

Well when you expect me to believe assertions based on your suppositions then I guess it’s not really hard at all. But why would I acept your suppositions when you can’t even prove any shred of them. You just said that the driving force of evolution was the fact the things change to accommodate changes in their environment but now your saying that even if they arrive at the viable state of surviving that they then begin to arbitrarily evolve based on some unknown force. Sorry. Now you’re dabbling in philosophy again. I’m not going down that road unless you offer some real evidences that can be observed.

Keep the dream alive,
Sam

I am genuinely not trying to poke fun at anyone, or to lambast anyone with philosophy. I love the truth and I would be happy in being wrong. I work with the best evidence and the best evidence is evolution- by far. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t believe in evolution. I don’t have any alterior motives! I’d like to understand more on how my presented evidence is merely relative to my preference. Maybe then I could help you.

With Kindest Regards,
David