Proofs of Evolution

1
Proofs of Evolution
2
Proofs of Evolution
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
And facts and theories are different things, not
rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data. Theories are
structures of ideas that explain and interpret
facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate
rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory
of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century,
but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair,
pending the outcome. And humans evolved from
ape-like ancestors whether they did so by
Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet
to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean
"absolute certainty" there ain't no such animal
in an exciting and complex world. The final
proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively
from stated premises and achieve certainty only
because they are NOT about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth,
though creationists often do (and then attack us
falsely for a style of argument that they
themselves favor). In science "fact" can only
mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional consent." I
suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow,
but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms.
3
Proofs of Evolution
Evolutionists have been very clear about this
distinction of fact and theory from the very
beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely
understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which
evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually
emphasized the difference between his two great
and separate accomplishments establishing the
fact of evolution, and proposing a theory -
natural selection - to explain the mechanism of
evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as
Fact and Theory" Discover, May 1981
4
Proofs of Evolution
This concept is also explained in introductory
biology books that are used in colleges and
universities (and in some of the better high
schools). For example, in some of the best such
textbooks we find Today, nearly all biologists
acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term
THEORY is no longer appropriate except when
referring to the various models that attempt to
explain HOW life evolves... it is important to
understand that the current questions about how
life evolves in no way implies any disagreement
over the fact of evolution. - Neil A. Campbell,
Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434
5
Proofs of Evolution
Also Since Darwin's time, massive additional
evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of
evolution - that all living organisms present on
earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the
course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of
modern biology is an affirmation of this
relatedness of the many species of living things
and of their gradual divergence from one another
over the course of time. Since the publication of
The Origin of Species, the important question,
scientifically speaking, about evolution has not
been whether it has taken place. That is no
longer an issue among the vast majority of modern
biologists. Today, the central and still
fascinating questions for biologists concern the
mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena
Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989,
Worth Publishers, p.972
6
Proofs of Evolution
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will
tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been
proved with fully 100 certainty, not even that
you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since
he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there
is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis,
theory, principle, and fact, but only a
difference along a sliding scale, in the degree
of probability of the idea. When we say a thing
is a fact, then, we only mean that its
probability is an extremely high one so high
that we are not bothered by doubt about it and
are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of
the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is
a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as
voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the
case of any other well established fact of
science concerning the existence of things that
cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons,
or solar gravitation ....
7
Proofs of Evolution
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the
evidence for evolution become that if anyone
could now disprove it, I should have my
conception of the orderliness of the universe so
shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own
existence. If you like, then, I will grant you
that in an absolute sense evolution is not a
fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than
that you are hearing or reading these words. -
H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin
Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59,
304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus
Creationism op cit. In any meaningful sense
evolution is a fact, but there are various
theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
http//www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolut
ion.html
8
Proofs of Evolution

• What evidence is proposed as supporting
  evolution?

• How well-established or certain is this evidence?

• Can other conclusions reasonably be formed from
  the evidence?

9
Stephen Jay Gould's comment in Hens Teeth and
Horses Toes Our confidence that evolution
occurred centers upon three general arguments.

• Micro-evolution

• Fossil Record

• Imperfection of nature

Gould continues his point regarding evidence,
"The second and third arguments do not involve
direct observation of evolution in action. They
rest upon inference, but are no less secure for
that reason
10
Assumptions
Data
Interpretation
11

• The Fossil Record

• Comparative Anatomy/ Homology

• Micro-Evolution

• Imperfections in Nature/Vestigal Organs

12
The Fossil Record
13
(No Transcript)
14
Primates
Hoofed Animals
Lemurs
Rodents
Carnivores
Bats
Placental
Reptiles
Whales
Marsupials
P. Mammals
Birds
Monotremes
Arachnids
P. Reptiles
Centipedes
Amphibians
Insects
Bony Fish
Crustaceans
P. Amphibians
Cartilaginous Fish
P. Arthropods
Annelids
P. Fishes
Molluscs
Lampreys
Nemathelminthes
Platyhelminthes
Lancelets
P. Chordates
Worms
Tunicates
Echinoderms
Sponges
Coelenterates
Plants
Protozoa
Living molecules
Proteins/RNAs
Inorganic Matter
Marcuzzi, Evolution
15
CARL DUNBAR, Yale, "Although the comparative
study of living animals and plants may give very
convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils
provide the only historical, documentary evidence
that life has evolved from simpler to more and
more complex forms." HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, p. 47
S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins, "It is doubtful
whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of
evolution would represent anything more than an
outrageous hypothesis. ...The fossil record and
only the fossil record provides direct evidence
of major sequential changes in the Earth's
biota." NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, p.72, 1981
16
STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, "The Cambrian
Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we
have reason to think that all major anatomical
designs may have made their evolutionary
appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum
Chordata itself, but also all its major
divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion.
So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to
Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal
gradualistic continuity with slow and steady
expansion, all major discoveries of the past
century have only heightened the massiveness and
geological abruptness of this formative event..."
Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682
RICHARD Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science
News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we
see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment,
right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian
Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that
filled the seas with the earth's first complex
creatures. ...This is Genesis material, gushed
one researcher. ...demonstrates that the large
animal phyla of today were present already in the
early Cambrian and that they were as distinct
from each other as they are today...a menagerie
of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and
other invertevrates that would seem vaguely
familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93
"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS, Steven J. Gould,
Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of
their branches the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.",
Nat.His., V.86, p.13
17
Primates
Hoofed Animals
Lemurs
Rodents
Carnivores
Bats
Reptiles
Whales
Marsupials
Birds
Monotremes
Spiders
Centipedes
Amphibians
Insects
Bony Fish
Crustaceans
Cartilaginous Fish
Annelids
Molluscs
Lampreys
Nemathelminthes
Platyhelminthes
Lancelets
Tunicates
Echinoderms
Sponges
Coelenterates
Plants
Protozoa
Inorganic Matter
Marcuzzi, Evolution
18
ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT, R.H.Dott, U.of Wis.
R.L.Batten, Columbia, AMNH, "We have arranged the
groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest'
forms first, and progressively more complex
groups following. This particular arrangement is
arbitrary and depends on what definition of
'complexity' you wish to choose. ...things are
alike because they are related, and the less they
look alike, the further removed they are from
their common ancestor." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH,
p.602
19
Comparative Anatomy/Homology
20
Comparative Anatomy
Comparative anatomy investigates the inherited
similarities and differences among organisms in
bone structure and in other parts of the body.
Homologous structures are body parts that
resemble one another in different species because
they have evolved from a common ancestor. Because
survival in specific environments can modify
anatomy, homologous structures may look different
and serve different functions, but do resemble
one another in how they are put together. The
forelimbs of cats, whales, rats, and bats are
homologous because they have all evolved from a
common ancestor.
21
Earnst Haeckel (1834-1919) Embryology The
"biogenetic law
In the 19th Century, German Biologist Ernst
Haeckel developed a concept known as "Ontogeny
Recapitulates Phylogeny." In brief, this means
that an organism's embryonic development gives us
a instant replay of its evolutionary history.
22
"Embryonic Features As Evidence Of Evolutionary
Relationships
23

• Evolutionists says, "There's no evidence of
  creation in the human embryo. Otherwise, why
  would a human being have a yolk sac like a
  chicken does and a tail like a lizard does? Why
  would a human being have gill slits like a fish
  does? An intelligent creator should have known
  that human beings don't need those things."

• Abortionists say, "the fetus is still in its
  fish stage so you are just cutting up a fish"
  today to convince young women that killing their
  child is acceptable.

• The famous baby psychologist, Dr. Spock said
  "Each child as he develops is retracing the whole
  history of mankind, physically and spiritually,
  step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a
  single tiny cell, just the way the first living
  thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he
  lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has
  gills like a fish..." (Baby and Child Care, Dr.
  Spock, 1957, p. 223)

24
What informed scientists say about Haeckel's
theory and drawings
Michael Richardson 'This is one of the worst
cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find
that somebody one thought was a great scientist
was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry
... What he Haeckel did was to take a human
embryo and copy it, pretending that the
salamander and the pig and all the others looked
the same at the same stage of development. They
don't ... These are fakes.' (Michael Richardson,
in an interview with Nigel Hawkes, The Times
(London), p. 14, August 11, 1997. )
Gavin R. DeBeer "The enthusiasm of the German
zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an
erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the
information which embryology could provide. This
was known as the biogenetic law' and claimed
that embryology was a recapitulation of
evolution, or that during its embryonic
development an animal recapitulated the
evolutionary history of its species." Gavin R.
deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York Nelson,
1964), p. 38.
K S. Thompson Recapitulated Error, , Pres.,
Academy of Natural Sciences, "Surely the
'Biogenetic Law' is as dead as a doornail It was
finally exorcised from biology test books in the
fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical
inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties."
American Scientist, p.273, 5/6/88
Michael Richardson "Although Haeckel confessed
... the drawings persist. 'That's the real
mystery.' says Richardson.", (New Scientist, p23,
9/6/97)
25
So, what have we done? Well, we fixed it. Joe
Levine and I have now revised the drawings that
appear on these pages of our textbooks, and the
5th Edition of the Elephant book has been
published with an accurate drawing of the embryos
made from detailed photomicrographs. We have also
rewritten page 283 of the 5th edition to better
reflect the scientific evidence regarding the
similarities of early development" by Kenneth
Miller, Author
26
What informed scientists say about Homology
A convincing explanation for the mystifying
'unity of type', the phenomenon of homology that
Darwin thought he had so adequately explained by
descent from a common ancestor, is probably still
a very long way away. With the demise of any sort
of straightforward explanation for homology one
of the major pillars of evolution theory has
become so weakened that its value as evidence for
evolution is greatly diminished. The breakdown of
the evolutionary interpretation for homology
cannot be dismissed as a triviality and casually
put aside as a curiosity for, as Sir Alister
Hardy reminds us in his book The Living Stream
"The concept of homology is absolutely
fundamental to what we are talking about when we
speak of evolution - yet in truth we cannot
explain it at all in terms of present day
biological theory." (Evolution A Theory in
Crisis, Michael Denton, 1985, p 151, citing The
Living Stream, A. Hardy, 1965, p 213)
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was
assumed that the inheritance of homologous
structures from a common ancestor explained
homology was misplaced." (Homology, an Unsolved
Problem, Sir Gavin de Beer, 1971, p 15)
Stephen J. Gould has admitted that homology is
explained as well by a common designer as it
would common evolution. (Natural History, Stephen
J. Gould, January 1987, p 14)
27
Homology provides no useful evidence for or
against Evolution nor Creation.
For example, if we study two vehicles, a Ford,
and a Chevrolet, and find that each has four
tires, that they are round, they are made of
rubber, and they are inflated with air ---- can
we then conclude that these Ford and Chevrolet
vehicles have evolved by chance from a common
ancestor?
28
One might ask 'If these similarities aren't the
result of a common ancestor, then why are they
there?' Another possible answer is that there is
a common designer rather than a common ancestor.
As an example let's look at some paintings
Some might recognize these as works of Vincent
Van Gogh. They are different paintings, but the
similarities are obvious enough to determine that
they are the work of the same artist. In much the
same way, the similarities in different creatures
may exhibit the handiwork of the same Marvelous
Creator.
29
Micro-Evolution
30
Micro-Evolution

• change within a Kind
• adaptation
• speciation
• selection
• limited range of possible variation
• much evidence (labs in the wild)
• observable

31
Macro-Evolution

• Change from one kind to another kind
• unlimited change potential required
• no direct evidence
• not observed

"Macro-evolution (major structural transition) is
nothing more than micro-evolution (flies in a
bottles) extended If black moths can displace
white moths in a century, then reptiles can
become birds in a few million years by the smooth
and sequential summations of countless changes"
Stephen Jay Gould
32
Peppered Moth Probably the most popular argument
for evolution is the peppered moth (Biston
betularia). It has been used to demonstrate the
idea of natural selection in relation to
evolution. Let's take a closer look at this and
see what it really demonstrates. Before the
industrial revolution, the forests in Great
Britain were mostly made up of light colored
trees. At this time, the peppered moth existed in
both light and dark colors, but the population
was predominantly white. The pollution which
resulted from all the new factories eventually
turned the bark of the trees dark, and with this,
there was a population shift and the dark colored
moths became the majority. This occurred because
the light colored ones lost the natural
camouflage of the light trees and were thus more
easily spotted by birds. Since then, Clean Air
acts have been passed, and again a shift occured,
increasing the population of the light colored
moths. It is true that this demonstrates how
natural selection works, but it doesn't speak a
word about evolution. What started as a peppered
moth, existing in both light and dark colors,
remains a peppered moth in both light and dark
colors. Where is the evolution? Where is the
emergence of a new and better species? What this
observation actually demonstrates is that even
through altered environments, a moth will always
continue to be a moth.
33

• What did we start with?
• two traits in a moth
• What did we end up with?
• two traits in a moth
• Natural selection occurs
• Natural selection makes nothing new
• Ensured survival of moth eco-system

34
Darwin Speaks
Within 14 years after writing Origin of the
Species, Darwin confessed to a friend "In fact
the belief in Natural Selection must at present
be grounded entirely on general considerations
faith and theorizing . . When we descend to
details, we can prove that no one species has
changed . . nor can we prove that the supposed
changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork
for the theory. Nor can we explain why some
species have changed and others have
not."Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham,
in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life
Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.
35

• Insecticide resistance
• Antibiotic resistance
• The island rabbits
• Practically all life is well adapted to where it
  can live
• Even us!

36
(No Transcript)
37
Color and Latitude Variations
38
Advantages/ Disadvantages of Color

• dark skin protects from intense sunlight better
  than white
• but it loses body heat faster
• light skin retains body heat better
• but is harmed by intense sunlight

39
ONE BLOOD
...Therefore, the One whom you worship without
knowing, Him I proclaim to you 24God, who made
the world and everything in it, since He is Lord
of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples
made with hands. 25Nor is He worshiped with mens
hands, as though He needed anything, since He
gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26And
He has made from one blood every nation of men
to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has
determined their preappointed times and the
boundaries of their dwellings, 27so that they
should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might
grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far
from each one of us Acts 1723-27
40
Imperfections in Nature/Vestigial Organs
41

• Vestigial Organs
• Vestigial organs are said to be organs which were
  necessary in the past evolutionary history of an
  organism, but no longer have a function. In other
  words they are useless leftovers. At the turn of
  the 20th century, there were approximately 180
  organs in the human body which were listed as
  vestigial. Some of the more popular ones making
  the list were
• adenoids
• appendix
• coccyx
• pineal gland
• thymus
• tonsils

Thinking it was a useless evolutionary "left
over", many surgeons used to remove the appendix
whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. This
is no longer done unless the appendix is
terminally infected. As recently as 1971, the
Encyclopedia Britanica claimed that there were
more than 100 vestigial organs in man, including
the appendix and coccyx! In years past, some
people lost their lives having "vestigial organs"
such as the parathyroid removed by overzealous
surgeons. Today there are few if any organs of
the body that are thought to be without function.
None the less, 7 out of 15 high school biology
textbooks recently surveyed sighted vestigial
organs, including the appendix, as evidence for
evolution!
42
Here are some of these supposedly useless organs
in your body

• The Tonsils Here is one of those "worthless
  organs," which we now know to be needed. These
  two small glands in the back of your throat help
  protect you against infections.

• The Coccyx Another organ declared useless, by
  evolutionists, is the coccygeal vertebrea (the
  coccyx). This is the bottom of your spine.
  Scientists have found that important muscles (the
  levator ani and coccygeus) attach to those bones.
  Without those muscles, your pelvic organs would
  collapse that is, fall down. Without them you
  could not have a bowel movement, nor could you
  walk or sit upright.

• The Thymus Try cutting this one out, and you
  will be in big trouble! It was once considered a
  worthless vestigial structure, but scientists
  have discovered that the thymus is the primary
  central gland of the lymphatic system. Without
  it, T cells that protect your body from infection
  could not function properly, for they develop
  within it. We hear much these days about the
  bodys "immune system," but without the thymus
  you would have none.

• The Appendix This is the classic "useless" organ
  of evolutionary theory. Science recently
  discovered that man needs this organ it is not
  useless after all. It helps protect you from
  gastrointestinal problems in the lower ascending
  colon. The appendix is now known to be an
  important part of what is called the
  reticulo-endothelial system of the body. Like the
  tonsils, the appendix fights infection.

43
The fact that tonsils can be cut out without
apparent harm is a major reason for calling them
"vestigial." But you will also survive if your
eyes and arms are cut off, and no one considers
them "vestigial," or useless organs. It would be
well to clarify the special role of the tonsils
and appendix The human alimentary canal is a
long tube leading from mouth to anus. Near each
opening, the Designer placed an organ to protect
your entire gastrointestinal tract from
pathogenic invasion while you were an infant. The
appendix was crucial during your first months,
and your tonsils during your first several years.
In later years, you do not have as urgent a need
for either your tonsils or your appendix as you
did while you were a small child. According to
Science News, March 20, 1971, both the tonsils
and appendix are now believed to guard us against
Hodgkins disease.
Of course, all of these organs have been found to
be not only useful, but necessary. And today, all
but a few of the original 180 have been crossed
off the list. Since then researchers have learned
that it is much more advantageous to search for
the function of these than to simply consider
them useless.
44
This car also has no vestigial parts because,
like the human body, it too had a Creator! If
something so complex as the human body could
evolve by chance, then even more so could this
automobile evolve by chance. I don't know what
many of the car parts do, but that doesn't mean
they are useless leftovers (vestigial).
45
Imperfections in Nature God wouldnt do it that
way
Many of the examples offered of imperfections are
of the "God wouldn't do that way" theme. Dawkins,
in The Blind Watchmaker. describes the
development of a young flatfish's skull as
growing in a "strange, asymmetrical and twisted
fashion". He goes on to say, "Its very
imperfection is powerful testimony of its ancient
history, a history of step-by-step change rather
than of deliberate design. No sensible designer
would have conceived such a monstrosity if given
a free hand to create a flatfish on a clean
drawing board.
Dawkins also points out that the photocells of
the eye are wired backwards from what would be
expected by an engineer. While noting that this
would not cause much distortion, he concludes,
"but, still, it is the principle of the thing
that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!".
Dawkins does not offer an evolutionary
explanation for the photocells, nor does he
explain the flatfish's development. As is typical
of this whole category of evidence, the strength
of the evidence is in its ridicule of the notion
of a perfection creation.