So let's discuss the evidence around us that supports the conclusion of Evolution over Creation! Woop woop!
For the purposes of this thread, we'll define "creation" as a single event over a brief period of time during which all life on earth was created in more or less its present form by a deliberate, intelligent designer.
We'll concentrate on a few basic evidences: The fossil record Gross morphology Genetics
First up: The fossil record!
Using an evolutionary model we would expect to see life on earth going from less complex to more complex as adaptations compound. From a creation standpoint where the animals were created at around the same time we would expect to see animals at all stages of complexity mixed together.
Well, which circumstance do we actually observe?
If we look at the fossil record, we see the former example: Simple invertebrates to fish to reptiles to mammals and so on. These are separated by distinct geological layers. And while we do of course see simple organisms coexisting with complex ones ( just look at an earth worm) we never see something like a ichthyosaur in a fossil bed with trilobites. Nowhere. Ever. AND we find fossil beds comprised entirely of simple organisms and we never find things like a mosasaur alongside a whale or a triceratops alongside a rhino.
How does creation account for this data? Can it account for the data better than an evolution model?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
So we look at bone morphology as evidence for common decent and thus evolution. Specifically, that the skeletal anatomy for many organisms is absurdly similar, irrespective of function. The fact that so many animals from a whale to a bat share most of the same bones in very similar configurations indicates that they came from a common ancestor. If they were created by a designer we could expect to see their bones more specifically suited to their environmental needs. Why give a squirrel the same bones as a whale? Of course the bones are altered, but at a fundamental level they are the same structures.
Another example favouring evolution can be found in marine animals. Fish swim by flexing their spine from side to side. Marine mammals swim by flexing it up and down. Well so what? In fact this is very important. Because the side to side motion is a far more efficient mode of aquatic locomotion than is up and down One might ask themselves why an intelligent creator would deliberately design an inferior mode of locomotion for an aquatic animal.
Under evolution, fish evolved into reptiles which later evolved into mammals and all marine mammals are descended from terrestrial mammals. If you look at the way marine mammals swim (flexing the spine up and down) you notice that it is the same way in which land mammals flex their spine when they run. Which is just what you'd expect from an aquatic mammal that arose from a land mammal.
So from an evolutionary perspective we see what we expect to see while under a creation perspective we just have to speculate on why a creator would do such a thing.
