Sunday, February 11, 2007

The Evidence for Evolution

On Friday, Bob said that "evolution is not supported by evidence." (This wasn't just a one-time occurrence. Bob makes routinely states this.)

But if you go to Google and type in "evolution evidence," here's some of what you'll find:
And the list could go on and on.

After reading these articles, you'll discover that Bob (1) is staying willfully ignorant of the evidence of evolution, (2) has radically different definitions for the words "evolution" and "evidence", or (3) is lying.

How can I learn so much about the evidence for evolution in such a little time, but Bob, who has produced a 2 CD set about how evolution is scientifically impossible, know so little?


drseinfeld said...

Dutko said that if evolution is true, then you would have cat/dog fossils. First you would have a dog fossil. Then a fossil of a dog, slightly changing into a cat, then a half cat and half dog fossil specimen, then finally a cat specimen. That would be some freakazoid fossils! But we don't see any fossils like that. Dutko went on for what seemed to be twenty minutes scoring easy points off his strawman argument. It is a strawman because of course we don't have that. But that is not what science says. Cats and dogs have common ancestors that branched off into felines and canines. Just like two sisters don't come from each other. They have the same mother. Evolution branches out like a tree; it doesn't go in a straight line. I think that is the biggest problem that keeps Dutko from understanding evolution. He thinks one day, some apes gave birth to humans. Humans and apes had common ancestors that branched out into the ape family and the hominid family. All species have common descent.
The dog traces its ancestry back to a five-toed, weasellike animal called Miacis, which lived in the Eocene epoch about 40 million years ago. This animal was the forebear of the cat, raccoon, bear, hyena, and civet, as well as of the wolf, fox, jackal, and dog.

Talk Origins Archive on common descent:

Ape/Human transtional fossils

Wikipedia article on common descent

Lumberjack said...

About eight times a week, Bob makes two related statements. First, he says, “Science supports creation and not evolution.” Second, he explains creationist views are “censored” our of school text books, museums and mainstream media reports. Evolutionists “Control” the peer review process, you see. He says schools don’t teach enough science -- if “enough” science was taught, creation would be obvious.

Sounds, great I suppose, to most of Bob’s audience but he overlooks one important characteristic of discourse in the scientific marketplace of ideas. The “censorship” he complains of can and would be overcome if his first statement were true.

Most of enduring names in science belong to those who upset the establishment – that showed dominant ideas at the time to be false. Galileo is the obvious name, but think of others. Kepler, Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, Harvey, Snow and so on if indeed, as Bob says, “science supports creation,” peer-reviewed publications and PowerPoint presentations at professional associations. Creationists will have to pay their dues by following the same processes other scientists do, but they refuse. Instead they stage “debates,” publish books and launch publicity programs.

Nowhere are there creationists striving diligently, with requisite rigor and discipline, to upset the establishment view of evolution. Instead of presenting their evidence, they whine about being shut out of the arena.