Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Actually, Bill, there is far more evidence available than just the fossil record. Living forms provide vast amounts of data by which to learn how change from generation to generation (microevolution) can add up to new species and new types over longer time scales (macroevolution).
As far as the idea that "we're all related," living creatures provides volumes of evidence in support of that. The fact that we share essentially the same cellular equipment as plants and translate our genes to proteins in exactly the same way is profound evidence of common ancestry.
Can you cite any evidence from the natural world that supports special creation? Creationists have tried to find some proof that one type, a baramin as they call them, is fundamentally different from another type, but they've found nothing. In fact, if you research baraminology, you'll find a lot of superficial talk about laying out plans and strategies for distinguishing baramins, and nothing concrete.
I am naturalist. If you go hiking with me, I can name most anything we'd see, plant or animal. Biodiversity is not an abstraction to me, and life is full of creatures that are close relatives with clear transitional vectors. Insects, of which there are millions of species, provide their own testament to the transitions from one form to another. For example, it is clear from studying living forms, not fossils, that ants evolved from social wasps that provision nests.
Right now I am trying to learn moths. There are at least 3,000 species in East Tennessee. Some are large and powerful like luna moths, others so tiny you might not even see them. Scientists have separated them into genera, subfamilies, tribes and superfamilies, but there are so many groups that it is a major challenge to learn even the basic categories. In fact, it is far easier to see transitions and variations than clear differences.
Can you tell me whether God created one type of moth from which the thousands microevolved, or was it three basic types or twelve or a hundred? That's the sort of challenge creationists would tackle if they were doing science. They would study the thousands of moths and tell us which ones got here by special creation and which by Darwinian mechanisms Charles himself only imagined and the subsequent two centuries of research proved to exist.
By conceding microevolution, you have pretty much lost the war. Macroevolution feels like a refuge since it is harder to understand and involves time scales we have trouble comprehending, but it is not a retreat into evidence but into the unknown. Do you have any physical evidence of an act of special creation?
I have tons of evidence that life evolved once and then diversified into the amazing variety we see around us.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.