What do you mean by "Evolution?" Is evolution simply the idea that the traits of a species can change (to an extent, give or take) over time, or is it the theory which fully explains the diversification of life on earth from single-celled organisms? Or, is it something else?
What are your favorite pieces of evidence for backing up your understanding of evolution? Alternatively, what are your favorite examples of evidence against evolution?
@burrawang, I have a question of sorts for you: if evolution were to fall out of favor among secular scientists, what sort of theory/paradigm would rise to take its place?
Regarding, the question of my favourite pieces of evidence for or against evolution the brilliant work done by John Sanford would have to be high on the list if not at the top.
The evolutionary mantra that mutations filtered by natural selection have led to the massive biodiversity found in nature is conclusively refuted is his book genetic entropy. The term Genetic Entropy was coined by Dr John C Sanford of Cornell University in his book titled “Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the genome” published by Ivan Press, Lima, New York, 2005.
This scientific work clearly and cogently shows that the unrelenting result from the millions of random mutations occurring within reproductively active genomes is “degradation or complete destruction of function”. The research that John Sanford presents, articulates the real world reality of an ever increasing burden or load of genetic mutations within all living organisms individual genomes that are for the most part unselectable by natural selection because they have no visible selectable effect at the macro organism level; therefore the mutational load is always increasing in each successive generation or put another way there is an inevitable and continuing reduction in the specified complexity of all genomes which is the exact antithesis of evolution. The consequence of this fact is profound in that we have here demonstrable and repeatable empirical proof that Darwinian Evolution is not only an incorrect hypothesis, it is in fact impossible and directly opposite to the observed reality; i.e. complex specified genomic information is being lost at a continually compounding and relatively alarming rate.
Any hypothetical beneficial mutations are extremely rare and greatly outnumbered likely by many orders of magnitude of neutral or detrimental mutations. The mutational burden being generated by genetic entropy is incessant.
For humans, total mutation rates are most likely greater than 1,000 nucleotide (DNA letter) changes in each person per generation which essentially means that the overall fitness of the human race is quite rapidly declining not ascending as evolution would have us believe. This fact is also another indicator of a young earth because if we accept the long age evolutionary timescale, then life on earth would likely be well extinct by now if we were to adopt the uniformitarian philosophy of the evolutionary worldview for the past history of the earth.
Simply put, evolution is going in the wrong direction!
Specified complex information is being lost not created!!!
Simply put, Darwinian Evolution is a religious philosophy that has many devout followers in academia and beyond, despite the sound scientific facts demonstrating that the theory is based on false paradigms, unsubstantiated assumptions and that it requires "deep time" i.e. millions and billions of years to provide a degree of plausibility for its followers.
I believe Darwinian Evolution will eventually fall as more and more people acquaint themselves with the facts, but until that time I guess we can expect the devout followers of Darwin will continue to support and argue for evolution in the face of a rapidly increasing body of sound empirical evidence that refutes it.
That depends on Atheistic Evolution versus Theistic Evolution. If we're talking Atheistic, Then they are as follows:
1. How did the universe ultimately come to be? Without an ultimate creator, atheists are left with two, (possibly three, but we won't discuss infinite universes separately...) options. The first, and possibly most widely accepted, is the Big Bang. This theory suffers from multiple issues, ( some of which have already been discussed here... e.g. the light-time travel problem) but foremost involves tracing the ultimate source of the initial "speck" it had to start somewhere, or be created by something, unless it itself is eternal, a theory we will discuss in a moment. (Some may respond to this "Well, who made God!?" however, if there was someone who made God, we would worship that someone, however, God is eternal, and not created, that's why he's God... anyway, moving on....) The second option they have, is an eternal universe, which is, if possible, more wrought with issues than the Big Bang. All of the evidence we can turn up in the universe points to it's being finite, that is, NOT eternal. The earth's magnetic field points to an age of only around 6000 years, the sun's distance from the earth points to an age of only at most 20000. All of these are a far cry from 4.5 billion years, much less "infinite" length of time. The universe, as we know it from the evidence, simply could not last forever.
2. Second, I would ask: "how did life come to be?" once again, atheistic evolutionists are left with a single option, a theory which was disproved hundreds of years ago: "Spontaneous Generation" I won't go to deep in detail here, but you simply can't get life from non-life, which is absolutely required for evolution to work. A primordial soup coming out of a "Big Bang" simply could not contain, or create life. Nevertheless, atheistic evolutionists are forced to believe it could, because their religion, evolution, demands it.
If THEISTIC evolution is the focus, then my favorite evidences vary in approach. Largely theological in nature.
1. Where, in scripture, do you find the time necessary for evolution to work. The Hebrew is very clear regarding the literal 24-hour days of creation, and leaves no massive gaps where millions of years could be fit in. The Hebrew is also very clear regarding the historical nature of the Genesis account. God created the world in six 24-hour days, using miraculous creative abilities only He possesses. People of Bible times were just as smart as we were, and if God had done it differently (I'm assuming here that we all believe God never lies) he surely wouldn't have been so misleading in his account of creation. Either God isn't all truthful, or maybe he did exactly what he said he did, created the world in six literal days in the relatively recent past, NOT using evolution.
2. What reason do you have to believe evolution, since we already have a historical record by the One Who created the world? Considering evolution needs God to work (as we discussed earlier) what reason does anyone have to believe in a theory that is continually defended for the very reason that scientists don't want to believe in God. ( Richard Dawkins pointed to evolution as allowing atheists to actually explain the origin of the world.) Evolutionary scientists continually interpret science and evidence through the lens of their atheistic world view, and since evolution is currently their best explanation, they are forced to find a way for the evidence to support it. The bottom line is, evolution is a religion, not science, since it cannot be observed or repeated. Likewise, Creation is a religion, since it cannot be observed or repeated either. I choose to believe creation, because the very One who created the world left us a written record of how he did it, a written record which is supported by the evidence we find in the world. Evolution has no such record, and instead relies on their interpretation of the evidence (a very flawed one, in my opinion, which I would be happy to discuss).