Just felt like throwing a few more pro-evolution arguments out there.
Whales and dolphins have five "fingers" in their flippers, just like humans and many other land mammals. Fish don't. Evolution could easily produce this result, but why would a creator do this? Just to confuse us?
Humans have several internal structures that serve no real purpose, like the appendix and tailbone. (I'm not a biologist, so feel free to correct me on that. I'm fairly sure that we do have something that serves no purpose, although you could argue that we just haven't discovered it yet.) According to evolution, these are simply remnants from an earlier stage when they were useful, or just random chance. Why would a creator deliberately give us useless organs?
We've gone through the entire human genome. Vast areas of our DNA are inactive, completely useless. Furthermore, we share something like 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees (anyone know the real number?), even the inactive parts. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that these deactivated parts are remnants of an earlier evolutionary stage; they once created proteins that were useful, and when the environment changed to make them useless or detrimental to the organism, they got deactivated over generations. I think this alone is irrefutable evidence that we have a common ancestry with other primates.
Unless you don't believe in genetics, which would, quite frankly, be silly, common sense shows that organisms will evolve over time. Those with characteristics that make them more likely to live long enough to breed successfully will tend to pass on their genetic traits to the next generation.
As others have stated, we have plentiful fossil records showing the gray areas between species along the evolutionary chain. Archeopteryx (sp?) was somewhat like a bird, somewhat like a dinosaur. And, of course, there are the numerous stages of human-like primate development. This evidence is pretty solid.
I read a science magazine article once that I wish I had saved. It basically refuted every argument ever made against evolution. It said that scientists have created new species in the lab (not surprising, since bacteria are constantly evolving to survive our antibiotics and antibodies), and that they have traced the evolution of the eye (in response to the argument that evolution could not create such a complex structure, since half an eye would be useless (which I would argue against)).
Remember that when scientists call something a "theory," it doesn't mean they have no idea if it's true or not; it just means that there isn't 100% proof (which is technically impossible). With all the evidence we have, scientists and those who believe them are about 99.99% sure that evolution is true. At least, if creationism is true, it would seem that God is trying to deliberately mislead us, which would definitely contradict the common conception of God.
If you can give that much evidence to support creationism, I will be thoroughly impressed and amazed.
|
