Creationists: what would you accept as provisional proof of evolution?

Creationists like to say that the evidence doesn't support the theory of evolution, so let's find out: What WOULD you consider sufficient evidence to convince you evolution is real?

Now, a few caveats and provisos for this experiment:

1.) Your evidence has to be something evolutionary theory actually predicts -- it doesn't predict dogs giving birth to cats, or apples growing from banana seeds, or anything like that. Evolution is about minute, incremental changes.

2.) Your evidence needs to be quantifiable and specific -- if you say "a transitional series", give a hypothetical example of a series you would find acceptable, with the qualities and features they'd possess. If you say "a mutation that produces new genetic information", give us an objective way to measure information and a hypothetical mutation that would fit that description.

Any takers?

Update:

Nature makes no such distinction as "micro" and "macro" evolution -- that's a completely man-made contrivance.

Update 2:

Evolutionary theory also makes no comment on the origins of life. Try again.

Update 3:

To be a "taker", ktbull, you actually have to PROVIDE A RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION.

So, let's try again: what would it take to convince you NOW, regardless of whatever studies might have gone on before, that the theory of evolution is correct?

Update 4:

Thanks for demonstrating your laziness and scientific illiteracy, Vengance -- I specifically said in the original question that the kind of spontaneous speciation you said would convince you is NOT what the theory of evolution predicts.

And incidentally -- great job on spelling your own name wrong! It's "vengence", genius,,,

Update 5:

Oh. they WANT plenty of knowledge, Magley -- that is, if you go by the original definition of "want", which makes it synonymous with "lack"...

24 Answers

Relevance
  • Best Answer

    This is a great question that deserves an honest answer.. Unfortunately I don't think you are going to get one. As I hypothesized in a previous question of mine, the really challenging and difficult questions go unanswered because answering them would require admittance of self-doubt. It's easier by far for the mind to "block" out and skim over things that could possibly change the way you look at the world forever. Another way is by evasion, they don't actually answer the question at hand instead they simply attack either the asker or an irrelevant aspect of the question such as spelling.

    However these people need to realize that forfeiting a question is an answer too in it's own way. It's kinda like when you ask someone "Did you steal my watch?" and they don't answer.. well obviously instead of lying and saying they didn't when they did they are opting to remain silent, which is as much of an indication of guilt as saying "Yes".

    So creationists, by opting out of actually answering this question you have stated clear as day that no proof is good enough for you and that you are not willing to admit you could be wrong. You basically just said that regardless of proof, you will never accept evolution as fact.

    Funny how nearly every atheist, agnostic, and non-believer out there can define what proof they require to believe in God/s and they willingly admit they would accept any evidence that proved them wrong..

  • 4 years ago

    Ok. your first premise is false. that was first proposed by the former atheist Anthony Flew. but really think about it. the only way something could be true is that it is capable of being proved false? how does that follow logically? falsifiability is not a condition of science. but, to play the game... Creationism could be falsified if something eternal and super natural could be given that created the universe. It would have to be super natural since logically it caused everything that is natural, and therefore cannot be natural itself because nothing can create itself. this eternal supernatural something would have to have intelligence since the universe is such a fine tuned universe, and we have intelligence so that an effect cannot have more information than it's cause, and since we are the cause, and have intelligence then this supernatural thing would need to be intelligent. The same thing goes for free will, conscious, logical, and personal. So - in summery - creation could be falsified if there was a supernatural, personal, conscious, logical, and intelligent something that caused the universe. Oh .. wait. That sounds like a God. Evidence for evolution: I assume you mean common descent and not merely genetic heredity with modification. I would need actual evidence where one species actually differentiates from it's parent genes significantly enough to be a different creature. Not just a slight modification as mentioned, but evidence of actual specisation. By that I mean a seperation from the species so that the basic animal structure is significantly different.

  • 1 decade ago

    That is a very fair question.

    How about a superior human? Did not Darwin, Nietzche predict a "super-man". There is diversification among humans, (skin color, eye color, etc). Which ones are the intellectually superior?

    ***

    Vishal - is the case that some "people are smarter than other" (and I admit, many smarter than me!) evolution? Will they emerge as a new race of humans? Are you prepared to throw out much scientific analysis that puts human intellegence as being related factors which include nurturing, environment, etc, and lay it and the feet of evolutionary process?

    Sorry I was not clear, bad spelling. My point was that in the areas of pyschology, sociology, intelligence is related not to evolution but to other factors, which include processes related to evolution (genetics), but are primarily not biological.

    Now, to your further reply, are you now saying intelligence is not a part of the evolutionary process? At least when I was an anthropology student, (some time ago, I believe Lucy may have even attended), intelligence was VERY MUCH a part of the evolutionary process; I recall that the major differences in homo habilus, erectus, sapien, etc was cranial capacity related to archeological/paleological artifacts. Unless there has been a dramatic change in the theory of human evolution, it is all about intelligence. Hence the 19th century interest in the "superman" that led to the 20th century holocausts

    ****

    Back to the main question: If you show me what evolution should produce, a superhuman, then I would be in a quandry of reconciling the "all people are equal" concepts of the Bible with the evidence that they are not.

    Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  • 1 decade ago

    Hi.

    First, I want to point out that I believe in God, and Jesus Christ, and I believe in science. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    As for the theory of evolution. (Sorry, to quote a very good researcher friend of mine, "Evolution is a theory. It's a very good theory, and I, for one, believe it. But it is a theory, and not proven.") Anyway, as for the theory of evolution:

    I believe adaptation is possible. However, I have a problem with evolution itself, as in an amoeba turned into a fish, which turned into a turtle, which...you get the idea.

    NOT because I don't think God would use it. God can do anything. Create an amoeba that turns into a fish, that turns into a turtle, or an ape that turns into a man... :)

    My problem with evolution is admittedly unusual: I have an intellectual problem with it.

    For me, to stop having a problem with it, I would like to see one of two things:

    1. NO prior links in the process that still exist. If amoebas evolved into something else, there should be no more amoebas.

    or

    2. EVERY step in the process still alive and thriving. We should have Neanderthals, and slowly evolving "X-men", etc., all alive and thriving.

    Why would either of the above make me prone to be more accepting of the theory? Well, for me, if a theory is TRUE, it should be CONSTANT. The way energy works is constant, or when you throw pennies into that chemical mix in high school they ALWAYS turn green, or when you apply sound algebraic principles, the math CONSTANTLY solves correctly. I hope that makes sense.

    Evolution is just an intellectual theory, and has no tangible proof. Sure, there is circumstantial evidence supporting the theory. However, in the history of science, most mainstream science tended to be mostly wrong at any given point in time.

    This is not to say it doesn't produce wonders and technologies, but it did this even when most scientists thought the earth was flat, with a universe that revolved around it!

    I for one, find the theory of evolution lacking, because it has not been proven. We can prove that the earth is roundish, because, well, we can float above it, and look down. We can prove that nuclear reactions create energy because we have DONE it. We have yet to prove the theory of evolution. Until we do, it is a theory. (I also have a problem with other "theories": the idea that we "can't" travel faster than light, or that a wormhole will "absolutely" collapse in the middle. There HAS to be ways around this! :) The beauty of science is that it QUESTIONS commonly accepted theories and practices and blazes brand new, exciting trails!)

    Thanks for reading.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    We classify micro and macro because we do not accept you can get a different species out of something.

    People say they don't make that claim but that is exactly what they do.

    How did we get a whale and a person out of algae?

    How many minute changes over time would have given us what we see today? How much time do you think it took?

    Im not trying to prove creation as a scientific theory, but TOE asks me to make to many leaps and bounds. I don't know what evidence I would accept, what was it that made you "know" you happened by chance? Did you start with the assumption that there was no other way?

  • 1 decade ago

    I personally have never seen a "benefical" mutation to any species. But I guess if I must, If a monkey could give birth to a human that would prove one evolved from the other and in the same family. So far a human and a monkey cannot produce offspring.

    I am wondering why you have completely ignored cuchlains response. I guess the answers have to match with your terms.

    By the way which is more believable, life made spontaneously from an entity, or life evolving from gas clouds, that cooled and formed rocks, and somehow life someway was evolved "from a rock"! HAHAHAHA That takes a lot of faith guy.

    And yes I deliberately spelled my name wrong due to the correct spelling was already taken as a name.

  • Vishal
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    If there was an increase in the number of elephants being born without tusks (which would increase survival chances by avoiding poachers) I would believe.

    Oh, wait... That has been found, and I do believe.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm

    Cuchlain: When you say an intellectually superior human, you realize that there are plenty of people who are smarter than others, right?

    EDIT:

    Cuchlain: Smart people will probably not "emerge as a new race of humans". Extra intelligence doesn't confer a selective advantage. A person who is capable of understanding difficult concepts does not have any more of a reproductive advantage than a person who is only capable of understanding enough to survive and reproduce.

    I also can't parse your last sentence about going through scientific analysis of intelligence as a function of other things. Could you clarify?

  • 1 decade ago

    I believe in Creation. But I never said that I didn't believe in some forms of evolution. I might even buy into the Big Bang Theory I just ultimately believe that God pushed the button that made it go BOOM!

    As for your actual hypothetical analysis - haven't had enough coffee to think that hard this morning!! Sorry!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    knowledge you talk about knowledge and evidence? You who mock faith?

    it takes more faith to believe in evolution than God who created earth

    you who believe evolution really believe this...

    Nothing working on nothing through nothing by nothing for nothing begat everything!!!

    that takes more faith to believe

    where did the great gases come from to cause the big bang?

    where did the rocks and earth and slime for man to evolve come from?

    and if yours is so accurate

    why do we not see evolution today?

    we all were once monkeys huh?

    well if we evolved from them why are they still here today?

    face it bud

    your livin in science fiction and fantasy

    only because if their was a God

    you would be accountable for your ways and thats what deep down scares you the most!

    also as more proof

    something as simple as a pencil

    didnt just form itself over millions of years

    but something as complex as earth did?

    you have to have more faith to believe that crap bud

    wake up youre the one who is the laughing stock not believers!!!

  • jt
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Creationist could not accept evolution, because that would mean thinking out of their comfort zone; and admit that their fantasies were fallible.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.