Have you ever debated a creationist about whale evolution? The evidence supporting the evolution of aquatic mammals, like whales, from ancient terrestrial mammals is overwhelming. A great example is the vestigial pelvic bones found in whales. Predictably, nearly all creationists argue that these structures are not vestigial because they still serve some functions, such as anchoring genitalia and playing roles in reproduction. This argument only signifies a misunderstanding of what “vestigial” truly means. It doesn’t imply that a structure is entirely useless. It signifies that the structure no longer serves its original function from an evolutionary perspective.

The hips of land mammals serve three primary functions: they support the legs for walking and bearing weight, provide structural support for the intestines and bowel muscles (which is particularly important for mammals that walk upright), and anchor the genitalia. In the case of whales, as they transitioned from land animals to fully aquatic animals, they gradually lost the need for the first two functions. Their legs became vestigial, and the support for intestines and bowel muscles, which is important for terrestrial locomotion and posture, became unnecessary in their aquatic environment. What remains of the hips in modern whales is primarily for anchoring the genitalia. We also possess this feature, which serves additional purposes due to the fact that we still have legs. This is entirely consistent with evolutionary principles.

This evolutionary transformation is well-documented in the fossil record, where we can observe the gradual reduction of the pelvic structures in ancestral whales. Initially, their ancestors had fully functional hips and legs suited for walking on land. Over time, as these creatures adapted to life in water, their hips and hind limbs shrank and lost their original functions, eventually becoming the small, vestigial structures we see in modern whales. This reduction in hip function and size is not only evident in the fossil record but is also mirrored in whale embryology.

Reading the 1981 Arkansas law:

Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: [...] (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; [...]

Since we all know (it's public record) that Intelligent Design is Creation Science in mustache glasses ("cdesign proponentsists"), the wording of the law made me wonder, what evidence(s) do they have that indicates the "Separate ancestry for man and apes"?

Let me put it this way. "Evidence for something" is not the same as "Nuh-uh!" or crying "You don't have evidence for your thing!"

Please let's stick to this one specific thing, the evidence for the "Separate ancestry for man and apes." It's been 43 years now since that law, and 166 years since the Darwin and Wallace paper...

Here are some of the "Nuh-uh!"s:

• Saying certain fossils are humans and not ancient-hominids is not evidence for separate ancestry, nor is it evidence against common ancestry; we're lucky to even have fossils. And their source? They don't know how to read;
• "We share 50% of our DNA with bananas, ha ha ha," is not evidence for separate ancestry (merely a sad remark on the state of education);
• "Look at the heterochromatin in the supposed chromosome 2 fusion!" falls flat when they can't explain what heterochromatin is (shout out to that Dr. Dan debate);
• "Similarities indicate common design," like how we humans and chimps have the same number of hair follicles, is still not evidence for separate ancestry;
• "Man talks, chimp make sound;" as if talking is not making sounds, and as if making sounds is not a way of animal communication. Where is the separate ancestry here? It requires too many mutations/"information" to make our intricate sounds? Despite it being a "Nuh-uh!" (incidentally, a sound), not an "evidence for", not if one understands developmental biology; also see: It only takes a few gene tweaks to make a human voice | New Scientist.

- For the regular contributors, try to steel man their evidence if there is any, in case I straw manned it (I did google for the evidence for the separate ancestry of humans and apes to see what they say, and for once, finally, google didn't spit out their blogs).

- For the proponents of "creation science" having evidence for the "Separate ancestry for man and apes", do share, but do ask yourself what "evidence for" means before you do.

They can doubt evolution all they want (freedom of thought; education is expensive and takes time and effort), but they can't point to anything that shows evidence for separate ancestry; how remarkable is that.

One thing that Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers both seem to have real trouble with is the sheer size of the world.

Let's take evolution. According to the Net of 10,000 lies, there are about 5 billion humans on the planet between the ages of 15 and 64. Let's use a conservative estimate and say that about 2 billion of us are actually of reproductive age. Let's be even more conservative and say that only a third of _those_ ( about 7 million ) are paired up with a regular sexual partner. Assuming sex at just once a week, that's an average of 7,716 sex acts **every second**, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. One male ejaculate contains a minimum of around 40 million sperm, each one subtly different. So that's -- conservatively -- about 308 million rolls of the dice every second, just for humans. On the scale of life on the planet, we're a relatively rare species. The wonder isn't that evolution occurred, it's that nothing has yet evolved from us to eat us.

Now consider insects, the _real_ masters of the earth. For every human, about 1.4 billion of them share the land. For each kilo you weigh, figure about 70 kilos of bugs. They reproduce more than we do by and large. I cannot count the number of reproductive acts they are performing globally in a second. It's a lot. Now think about microbes. You're getting up into Cantor numbers by this point.

Humans mostly deal with quantities in the hundreds at most. Any number larger than about 7 is impossible to grasp directly with our feeble brains. Common sense is great, but it tends to fail when confronted with really big numbers. The creationist argument that "Micro evolution might happen, but evolution into different 'kinds' is impossible" seems to hinge on just this gulf between common sense and math.

World population by age: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-by-age-group
Insect vs human population: https://www.royensoc.co.uk/understanding-insects/facts-and-figures/

Sperm counts: https://www.livescience.com/32437-why-are-250-million-sperm-cells-released-during-sex.html

The same instinct which gives a woman a bad feeling about a guy when on date, is the very same we use in our everyday lives when we think about, process, and evaluate the world we see. We just have this gut-feeling about things and most often, they're right. I bring this up in regard to the argument all humans alive today are the result of one or two migrations out of Africa that happened about 80k years ago.

When I see the various phenotypes of humans, the various languages, and the types of societies we've created around the world, it doesn't feel like we all stem from an original source of humans only 80k years ago. The diversity is too much for that short a time. To me, it feels like it's a much longer time ago that we evolved and spread out.

Humans have looked as we do for at least the last 15k years. How is that possible if in 80k years we went from looking like modern Africans to an Eskimo/East Asian ? I am not contesting evolution. I just don't accept the argument we came from a source so recent out of Africa. We are all related, but I think we all stem from Homo heidelbergensis who existed closer to 750k years ago. In that time, HH spread out, evolved into humans, neanderthals, denisovans, etc .... and mixed with each other, and the end result around 20k years ago are the various ethnic groups we have today.

It's incredibly frustrating that, no matter how much evidence is presented for evolution, some young Earth believers and literal 6-day creationists remain unwavering in their stance. When exposed to new, compelling data—such as transitional fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx, the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, vestigial structures like the human appendix, genetic similarities between humans and chimps, and the fossil record of horses—they often respond with, "No matter the evidence, I'm not going to change my mind." These examples clearly demonstrate evolutionary processes, yet some dismiss them as "just adaptation" or products of a "common designer" rather than evidence of common ancestry and evolution. This stubbornness can hinder meaningful dialogue and progress, making it difficult to have constructive discussions about the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

In the 1700s, Dutch settlers on Flores reported seeing small, human-like creatures living in the dense forests and caves, describing them as bipedal, hairy, and shy, often avoiding human contact. These creatures sound strikingly similar to the Homo floresiensis fossils discovered centuries later in the same area. What’s even more fascinating is that these sightings happened long before the "Hobbit" fossils were found, suggesting a possible connection between the creatures described in the reports and the ancient hominins. The fact that both local myths and historical accounts from different cultures describe similar beings in the same region only adds to the mystery. Could these encounters have been with a surviving population of Homo floresiensis? It’s hard not to wonder if these ancient creatures might have lived on much longer than we thought, hiding in the remote corners of Flores until modern times.

"Homo floresiensis May Have Disappeared Earlier than Thought": This article discusses the revised extinction timeline of Homo floresiensis, suggesting they may have vanished earlier than previously believed.Sci News

• "On Flores Island, Do 'Ape-Men' Still Exist?": This piece delves into the possibility that Homo floresiensis might have survived longer than expected, potentially even into modern times.Sapiens
• "Anthropologist Believes An Ancient Human Species May Have Been Sighted on Flores Island": This article highlights the work of anthropologist Dr. Gregory Forth, who suggests that reports of small, human-like creatures on Flores could be linked to Homo floresiensis.IFLScience

How does one effectively address any underlying moral qualms about evolutionary biology to increase the effectiveness of what the science says?

• Example: they may worry that if they entertain the idea that humans are just another animal, then there will be no grounds for acting morally/civilly, and so science (in this field only) is rejected.

Anyone has experience with that?

For the former anti-evolutionists (e.g. former YEC), were there such qualms, and what made you realize they were unfounded?

The reason I ask and why it seems relevant:

Yesterday after u/ursisterstoy asked the former-YEC about the contradictions in YEC teachings (post), I searched the scientific literature for what changes the minds of YECs.

This led me down a rabbit hole and to a research that suggests that while the debate focuses on the validity of the science, it ignores that the rejection of evolution is grounded in morality (as in from the perspective of those who reject it),[1] and not educational attainment.[1,2]

1. Evans, John H. "Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science." Journal for the Scientific Study of religion 50.4 (2011): 707-727. link

2. Drummond, Caitlin, and Baruch Fischhoff. "Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114.36 (2017): 9587-9592. link

Looking back:

Seeing previous interactions I've had here in this light, the subtext of morality is indeed in many of the longer discussions I've had here, such as when a respondent said that evolution doesn't explain souls, and by the end of the thread we were discussing where morality comes from. And scientifically-inclined me showing the evidence of superstition and superstition-like behavior in all animals (source), and its irrelevance to the question of how societies arrive at social norms, and them having none of it (I was and still am appreciative of that discussion).

Perhaps it’s something to keep a lookout for? (My main questions are those at the beginning of this post.)

Over to you, and thanks.

Since macroevolution refers to evolutionary processes at or above the species level, including phenomena such as allopatric speciation or anagenetic speciation, we have a question in the context of the definition of macroevolution; what is a “species”?

Different definitions of species are used for different purposes, the concept of species are used both as taxonomic units, for identification and classification, as theoretical concepts for modeling and explanation. Despite possible overlap and similarities, a definition appropriate for one purpose is not necessarily appropriate for another. Species definitions applied to fossils, for example, cannot be based on genetics or behavior because these traits do not fossilize. Unfortunately, there is no universal definition. However, we can choose a specific term that clearly delineates the concept of species precisely in the context of the goal of defining observed macroevolution. It could simply be reproductive isolation, which means the term species for our purpose is the categorization of a group of organisms capable of mutual interbreeding. This is why, in the context of observed macroevolution, we can consider geographic isolation of a population as a potential future macroevolutionary event.

Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations | Heredity

(PDF) GENETIC STUDIES ON SEXUAL ISOLATION AND HYBRID STERILITY IN LONG-TERM CAGE POPULATIONS OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER

A Multifactorial Genetic Investigation of Speciation Theory Using Drosophila melanogaster on JSTOR

There seems to be a pandemic of YECs falsifying their own claims without even realizing it. Sometimes one person falsifies themselves, sometimes it’s an organization that does it.

Consider these claims:

1. Genetic Entropy provides strong evidence against life evolving for billions of years. Jon Sanford demonstrated they’d all be extinct in 10,000 years.
2. The physical constants are so specific that them coming about by chance is impossible. If they were different by even 0.00001% life could not exist.
3. There’s not enough time in the evolutionist worldview for there to be the amount of evolution evolutionists propose took place.
4. The evidence is clear, Noah’s flood really happened.
5. Everything that looks like it took 4+ billion years actually took less than 6000 and there is no way this would be a problem.

Compare them to these claims:

1. We accept natural selection and microevolution.
2. It’s impossible to know if the physical constants stayed constant so we can’t use them to work out what happened in the past.
3. 1% of the same evolution can happen in 0.0000000454545454545…% the time and we accept that kinds have evolved. With just ~3,000 species we should easily get 300 million species in ~200 years.
4. It’s impossible for the global flood to be after the Permian. It’s impossible for the global flood to be prior to the Holocene: https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/RNCSE/31/3-All.pdf
5. Oops: https://answersresearchjournal.org/noahs-flood/heat-problems-flood-models-4/

How do Young Earth Creationists deal with the logical contradiction? It can’t be everything from the first list and everything from the second list at the same time.

Former Young Earth Creationists, what was the one contradiction that finally led you away from Young Earth Creationism the most?

Thesis: The concept of "Fitness" seems to have developed by mistake, and doesn't appear to refer to anything at all, but instead is simply an empty term trapped in a strange-loop.

Explication: Initially, Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was posited as a mechanism governed by survival. Organisms who survive are able to reproduce and pass on their genes while those who die aren't allowed to do so. Thus, "survival of the fittest" meant something like "fit to survive".

The term, however, seems to have been updated at some point, (perhaps when cooler heads realized that in order for an organism to exist in the first place it must already be born of "fit to survive" parentage,) and was redefined as "reproductive success". This move appears to indicate an acknowledgement that the mere fact of existence is not sufficient to explain adaptation and speciation.

The problem with this is, without survival as a mechanism, the process of reproduction itself becomes the mechanism of selection, and therefore, defining "fitness" as "reproductive success" becomes self-referential. (strange-loop) Thus, when learning about Evolution, we are told that animals engage in sexual selection, wherein a certain sex will participate in displays of "fitness", and those with the most impressive displays get to reproduce. But what is "fitness"? Reproductive success. So then, how successful an organism is at reproducing is dependent on their ability to demonstrate how successful they are at reproducing.

"Fitness" no longer carries any substantive anchor, but is just a word that used to mean something, but is now trapped in a loop. Fitness is a measure of reproductive success, and reproductive success is a measure of fitness.

Analogy: To understand how this lacks coherence, let's draw up an analogy and see how these concepts apply. Consider the auto industry in the USA. Let each make of vehicle (Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc) represent a different sub species in competition, with style trends and features of vehicles being the organisms phenotype, and the purchase by consumers the mechanism of selection.

Now, looking at American cars from 1950 to 2025, what would it mean to hypothesize "survival of the fittest"? Well, obviously a car that doesn't drive cannot be sold, so no manufacturer making cars that don't run are going to pass on their cars phenotypes. But this, honestly, tells us nothing about the auto industry. Alright, let's call it "reproductive success". So, cars with features that result in more sales are going to reproduce in larger numbers, and the next generation of cars will retain those features while loosing features that don't result in reproductive success. Genius right? Explains everything.

Except... This is just like the 'mere fact of existence' problem from before. The fact of reproductive success tells us nothing substantial about the features and design of cars or the reasons and motivations behind people buying them. To insist that the selection of cars is based on the car's perceived fitness, but that fitness is just a measure of how well a car sells, is saying nothing.

Now I ask you all to please actually consider this. What does it mean to say that a doe desires a buck who displays higher fitness if fitness is simply a measure of how desired the buck is by doe? That's meaningless. Without being anchored to survival, "fitness" is empty. Don't believe this is a legitimate problem? Look at this:

Wikipedia: Sexual Selection: "Sexual selection can lead males to extreme efforts to demonstrate their fitness to be chosen by females"

Wikipedia: Fitness: "is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success."

Question: There are reasons and motivations behind our preferences in the features and designs of vehicles. Analyzing the mere fact of the existence of vehicle designs and features and how they've spread and changed over the years reveals nothing substantial about those reasons and motivations. Likewise, there are reasons and motivations behind a doe's preferences in the characteristics and attributes of a buck. Considering the mere fact of the existence of traits and proliferation reveals nothing substantial about those reasons and motivations. To posit the mere fact of their existence (survival) or the mere fact of their proliferation (fitness) as an explanation for their selection or part and parcel to the selection process is circular and empty. So here are my questions:

Is this a known issue in the study and theory of Evolution, in any field, be it biology, statistics, whatever, and if so, what are the proposed solutions? Consensus? Additional theories? etc..

If not, is it because this isn't a real problem but only stems from my misunderstanding of Evolutionary theory? If so, what precisely am I missing that would clear all this up?

Or is it both not a well covered issue, and not a misunderstanding, but a legitimate concern? If so, why hasn't there been more conversation about how to conceptualize all these ideas, and what proposed solutions do you all have to offer?

I've had great luck in this sub before, with many of you being very gracious and patient with your expertise, helping me to clear up some of the misunderstandings I've had in the past, and gain a much better grasp of how Evolution works, so I'm hoping again for some informative and substantial responses that will fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge.

Thank you all in advance for your responses, and thanks for reading! Happy New Year to all as well!

This is a science outreach sub; I don't have a question (this is flaired article), rather I'm just sharing what I think is of relevance to the "debate", historically and scientifically, after seeing the recent post, "Is DNA a molecule yes or no?".

That post reminded me of something from a century ago; to be exact from 95 years ago. Back then we hadn't yet worked out what chromosomes or genes were (the term "gene" was coined and already in usage), even though mutation, gene duplication, and linkage disequilibrium were being studied by Morgan and others.

Here's what a science writer, Charles Singer, wrote in 1930:

Despite interpretations to the contrary, the theory of the gene is not a mechanistic theory. The gene is no more comprehensible as a chemical [lolz] or physical entity than is the cell or, for that matter, the organism itself. Further, though the theory speaks in terms of genes as the atomic theory speaks in terms of atoms, it must be remembered that there is a fundamental distinction between the two theories.

Atoms exist independently, and their properties as such can be examined. They can even be isolated. Though we cannot see them, we can deal with them under various conditions and in various combinations. We can deal with them individually. Not so the gene [lolz]. It exists only as a part of the chromosome, and the chromosome only as part of a cell.

[...] Thus the last of the biological theories leaves us where the first started: in the presence of a power called life or psyche [aka vitalism] which is not only of its own kind but unique in each and all of its exhibitions.

Basically chromosomes were thought indivisible, unlike the chemical elements being made of atoms and thus amenable to being studied. That view was put to rest less than 3 decades later, and it follows from that that if we're still debating that which is key to understanding the causes of evolution, we might as well have an r-DebateChemistry sub. IMO, what the literalists are doing amounts to vitalism in a different guise: the insertion of magic elsewhere, e.g. an anthropomorphic "design board", even though life isn't "built".

NB Some, including scientists, may cry, "Reductionist!" Note that that term is "one of the most used and abused terms in the philosophical lexicon" (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy). I'm not saying genes are life—I'm not, to borrow Dennett's term, a "greedy reductionist", but yeah, life is chemistry, and it isn't built, and we eat/breathe/excrete dead matter to "live".

I’m skeptical of some of the common criticisms against scientific theories like evolution or the Big Bang, but I wanted to put this out for discussion. Some argue that scientific explanations, based on observable evidence and peer-reviewed research, offer a more logical understanding of our origins than religious creation accounts. These views challenge the necessity of a divine creator in the process of life’s development. However, creationists argue that the complexity and order of the universe point to an intelligent designer. George Orwell once said, 'There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.' I’m not sure if this quote is being taken out of context or if it genuinely applies to these discussions. What do you think? Is it quote mining, or does it hold value in this debate about science and faith?

Take two as I failed to realize in an earlier post that the topic needed an introduction; I aimed for a light-hearted take that fell flat and caused confusion; sorry.

Tropes

Often creationists attack evolution by saying "You can't know the past". Often they draw attention to what's called "historical" and "experimental" sciences. The former deals with investigating the past (e.g. astronomy, evolution). The latter investigating phenomena in a lab (e.g. material science, medicine).

You may hear things like "Show me macroevolution". Or "Show me the radioactive decay rate was the same in the past". Those are tropes for claiming to only accepting the experimental sciences, but not any inference to the past, e.g. dismissing multicellularity evolving in labs under certain conditions that test the different hypotheses of environmental factors (e.g. oxygen levels) with a control.

I've seen an uptick of those here the past week.

They also say failure to present such evidence makes evolution a religion with a narrative. (You've seen that, right?)

Evolution is "historical science"??? Yes, it's a thing, but not what creationists think

The distinction between the aforementioned historical and experimental sciences is real, as in it's studied under the philosophy of science, but not the simplistic conclusions of the creationists.

• Here's an NCSE (an NGO center that debunks creationists) article on the topic, but I found it lacking to my taste: "Historical science" vs. "experimental science" | National Center for Science Education.

• And here's a more thorough journal article on the topic: Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science | Philosophy of Science | Cambridge Core.

(The links merely confirm that the distinction is not a creationist invention, even if they twist it; I'll deal with the twisting here.)

From that, contrary to the aforementioned fitting to the narrative and you can't know the past, historical science overlaps the experimental, and vice versa. Despite the overlap, different methodologies are indeed employed.

Case study

In doing historical science, e.g. the K-T boundary, plate tectonics, etc., there isn't narrative fitting, but hypotheses being pitted against each other, e.g. the contractionist theory (earth can only contract vertically as it cools) vs. the continental drift theory.

Why did the drift theory become accepted (now called plate-tectonics) and not the other?

Because the past can indeed be investigated, because the past leaves traces (we're causally linked to the past). That's what they ignore. Might as well one declare, "I wasn't born".

Initially drift was the weaker theory for lacking a causal mechanism, and evidence in its favor apart from how the map looked was lacking.

Then came the oceanic exploration missions (unrelated to the theory initially; an accidental finding like that of radioactivity) that found evidence of oceanic floor spreading, given weight by the ridges and the ages of rocks, and later the symmetrically alternating bands of reversed magnetism. And based on those the casual mechanism was worked out.

"Narrative fitting"

If there were a grand narrative fitting, already biogeography (the patterns in the geographic distribution of life) was in evolution's favor and it would have been grand to accept the drift theory to fit the biogeography (which incidentally can't be explained by "micro"-speciation radiation from an "Ark").

But no. It was rebuked. It wasn't accepted. Until enough historical traces and a causal mechanism were found.

Next time someone says "You can't know the past" or "Show me macroevolution between 'kinds'" or "That's just historical science", simply say:

We're causally linked to the past, which leaves traces, which can be explored and investigated and causally explained, and the different theories can be compared, which is how science works.

When the evidence is weak, theories are not accepted, as was done with the earlier drift theory, despite it fitting evolution; and as was done with the supposed ancient Martian life in the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite (regardless of the meteorite's relevance to evolution, the methodology is the same and that is my point).

Over to you.

Simple question. No ulterior motives. Just a yes or no question poll to the group. Is DNA a molecule? Do you agree or disagree? Yes or no?

Edit: Thank you everyone who provided a straightforward response!

I was considering the evolution of life as a whole and when you think about it, theres alot of happen stances that seem to have occurred to build us to the point of intelligence we are. Life has gone from microbes to an intelligence that can sit down and contemplate its very existence.

One of the first things this intelligence does is make the claim it came from a God or Gods if you will depending on the culture. As far as I can tell, there simply isn’t an atheistic culture known of from the past and theism has gone on to dominate the cultures of all peoples as far back as we can go. So it is as if this top intelligence that can become aware of the world around it is ingrained with this understanding of something divine going on out there.

Now this intelligence is miles farther along from where it was even 50 years ago, jumping into what looks to be the beginning of the quantum age. It’s now at the point it can design its own intelligences and manipulate the world in ways our forefathers could never have imagined. Humans are gods of the cyber realm so to speak and arguably the world itself.

Even more crazy is that life has evolved to the point that it can legitimately destroy the very planet itself via nuclear weapons. An interesting possibility thats only been possible for maybe 70 years out of our multi million year history.

If we consider the process that got us here and we look at where we are going, how can we really fathom it’s all random and undirected? How should it be that we can even harness and leverage the world around us to even create things from nukes to AI?

Adaptive Creationism is a hypothesis I have, proposing that God created all life with purpose and structure, but also with the potential for change and adaptation within each "kind" of creature. According to this idea, the Bible teaches that God created animals in their respective days, including aquatic creatures, but it doesn’t provide details on how those animals might adapt to changing environments over time. This suggests that God could have designed creatures with the capacity for adaptation, allowing them to fulfill new roles in a dynamic world. For example, land animals could have been created with the ability to adapt and evolve into aquatic creatures, such as whales evolving from land-dwelling ancestors. This process of adaptation doesn’t conflict with the idea of divine creation; rather, it shows God’s wisdom in designing life to thrive in various environments.

This hypothesis is not theistic evolution because it doesn't suggest that evolution, as understood in mainstream science, is the primary mechanism for how life changes. Instead, Adaptive Creationism posits that God intentionally created creatures with the ability to adapt within their "kinds," meaning the changes are still part of God's original design rather than an ongoing, natural process independent of divine intervention. It respects the concept of a purposeful, orderly creation while allowing for adaptation within the parameters of God’s original intent, without relying on an evolutionary framework that proposes random, unguided change over time.

Before I start I once posted a post which was me just using ai , and I would like to apologise for that because it wasn’t intellectually honest , now I’ll start asking my questions First question is regarding the comparative anatomy which evolution presents , my question about this is if Comparative anatomy reveals similarities in the anatomical structures of different organisms, suggesting common ancestry then why is it that the DNA sequencing data has come in over the last 40 years only? Why is it that many homologous morphologies turn out to be NOT related and if therefore the term “convergent evolution “ came to be ?Also are scientists also considering that genetic similarities may be convergently arrived at, and so the assumption of relatedness based on similarity is severely undermined? Now for my second question which is regarding genetics If scientists claim that Genetic evidence, including DNA sequencing and comparative genomics, supports the theory of evolution and that DNA analysis reveals similarities and differences in the genetic codes of different species, confirming evolutionary relationships and patterns of descent with modification then wouldn’t that be circular reasoning if convergence in morphology is most likely paralleled by convergence in genetics? Would it not be making similarity not clearly reflective of relatedness – you will have to greatly increase the level of similarity in order to assume relatedness, right ? (Explain ) which could end up just being normal descent within kinds, which correlates to Family or Classes in Linean taxonomy, no? And my last question would be about observational evidence If Observational studies of evolutionary processes, such as natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation, provide empirical support for the theory of evolution for Example like the observed instances of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, adaptive changes in response to environmental pressures, and the emergence of new species in isolated populations.

Then how is that proof of evolution? if you define it as the creation of novel DNA and proteins. Natural selection happens, but how does that prove that new functional DNA has been created?If it only selects for a single generation of possible beneficial mutations.

As seen in the Lenksy experiments, the only thing that mutation can accomplish is loss of function with temporary benefits. can someone show me that something like bacterial resistance results from an increase in specificity or new function ? Wouldn’t it be most likely a normal adaptation or a LOSS of specificity or function that has an accidental temporary benefit?also the lost functionality is a long term loss of fitness, right ?When conditions change back wouldn’t the defective DNA be a detriment?

And wouldn’t this be The same with speciation , like if you are defining speciation as a lack of ability to reproduce, then this is not the creation of new body parts or functionality, but a loss of function?

From the patagium of the flying squirrels to the feelers of gliding bristletails to the fins of exocoetids, all sorts of animals are equipped with partial flight members. This is exactly as is predicted by evolution: New parts arise slowly as modifications of old parts, so it's not implausible that some animals will be found with parts not as modified for flight as wings are

But how can creationism explain this? Why were birds, bats, and insects given fully functional wings while other aerial creatures are only given basic patagia and flanges?

Being factual is authority in science.

Scientific authority refers to trust in as well as the social power of scientific knowledge, here including the natural sciences as well as the humanities and social sciences. [Introduction: Scientific Authority and the Politics of Science and History in Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe** - Cain - 2021 - Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte - Wiley Online Library]

Facts and evidence rather determine what to accept or believe for the time being, but they are not unchallengeable.

Scientific evidence is often seen as a source of unimpeachable authority that should dispel political prejudices [...] scientists develop theories to explain the evidence. And as new facts emerge, or new observations made, theories are challenged – and changed when the evidence stands scrutiny. [The Value of Science in Policy | Chief Scientist]

• Do you believe speciation is true?

Science does not work by appeal to authority, but rather by the acquisition of experimentally verifiable evidence. Appeals to scientific bodies are appeals to authority, so should be rejected. [Whose word should you respect in any debate on science? - School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry - University of Queensland]

• That means you should try to provide this sub with what you think as evidence.

I came across this short by a Christian YouTuber called Abolitionist Rising:

https://youtube.com/shorts/zxZpCIVOQ-4?si=Z31hQAhUikexL-Gw

It was a political debate about abortion but evolution was mentioned and Russel (the non bearded guy on the left) made this claim about evolution.

He said that the tracking of genes clashed with the tracking of fossils in the fossil record and I want to ask how true this statement is and if it’s even false.

There was no Big Banf however it does mean that it must of been soon after, i mean soon, that physics was organized and has since never evolved nor is it evolving. The whole discussion on physics demands it never evolved etc. so in billions of yearsvevolution has no part in such a major part of nature. for this forum this strongly suggests a probability curve that biology did not evolve. Regardless of timelines Like physics biology is just , more, complex, and its a machine too. its not a self creating machine as neuther is physics. The complete lack of evolution in physics is strong suggestion of no evidence in biolggy or geology or anything.

There are several big examples where genetic data and the fossil record have provided conflicting problems with the supposed evolutionary history.

Hominin Evolution has Genetic Evidence going against the Fossil Record for Human Origins that shows that Genetic Data of Mitochondrial DNA and its studies suggest that modern humans(Homo sapiens) originated in Africa around 200 thousands of years ago, with a subsequent dispersal of an "Out of Africa" model. But the Fossil Record Fossils like those from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco indicate modern human features as early as 300 thousands of years ago, showing a longer presence of modern humans in Africa than previously thought from genetics alone. This challenges the timing and perhaps the simplicity of the "Out of Africa" model based solely on genetic data and whether it even happened at all in that way with those timings.

Neanderthal and Denisovan Interbreeding Genetic Data shows that Modern human genomes contain Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, suggesting interbreeding. The genetic evidence suggests this interbreeding occurred multiple times and in different locations. But the Fossil Record Fossils do not directly show interbreeding but indicate co-existence of these groups in regions like Eurasia, putting the entire supposed ancient history of humans into question.

In supposed "Whale Evolution" the Molecular Clock goes against the Fossil Record, this is apparent when the Genetic Data of the Molecular clocks, based on genetic mutation rates, have sometimes suggested a faster or slower evolution of whales from land dwelling ancestors than the fossil record shows. Fossils like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus outline a step by step transition from land to water differ in huge ways to specific evolutionary stages or timing. Inferring that they are not related in the way they are said to be related at all.

In the supposed Dinosaur to Bird Connection there are Genetics going against Morphological Evolution problems. Genetic Data with its Phylogenetic studies based on molecular data often support the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, with some genetic analyses implying a closer relationship between certain bird lineages and dinosaurs than previously thought from fossils alone so there is no way that they could have an evolutionary relationship in the previously theorized predictive pattern. While there's supposed strong fossil evidence (like Archaeopteryx) supporting the bird to dinosaur link, the exact timing and nature of this transition can appear to have heavy conflict with genetic timelines. And if the timeline is wrong and there are these problems then that shows that they are not really ancestrally related at all, birds and dinosaurs have no common ancestry with each other, only a common designer.

Mammal Diversification After Dinosaur Extinction with Molecular evidence going against Fossil Evidence for Radiation is also a huge problem. Molecular studies sometimes suggest a rapid diversification of mammals shortly after the KPg boundary(Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event), driven by the ecological niches left vacant by dinosaurs. But the fossil record shows diversification, but not always as rapid or synchronous as suggested by genetic data. So the genetic data is proving a radiation like what is said to have happened after Noahs flood, and everything said about gradual radiation of mammals in general and that the fossil record shows that is a complete fabrication and lie.....

These are just some of the major examples of where the heavily interpretive genetics and studies of genes clash with the also even more heavily interpretive fossil record "made up out of someones ass narrative". If the important timings are known to not match up at all that I mentioned above, then the ancestral relationships posited are now in question and are most likely not so.

When people mention the Bible or Jesus or the Quran as evidence for their world view, humans (and rightly so) want proof.

We all know (even most religious people) that saying that "Jesus is God" or that "God dictated the Quran" or other examples as such are not proofs.

So why bring up macroevolution?

Because logically humans are naturally demanding to prove Jesus is God in real time today. We want to see an angel actually dictating a book to a human.

We can't simply assume that an event that has occurred in the past is true without ACTUALLY reproducing or repeating it today in real time.

And this is where science fell into their own version of a "religion".

We all know that no single scientist has reproduced LUCA to human in real time.

Whatever logical explanation scientists might give to this (and with valid reasons) the FACT remains: we can NOT reproduce 'events' that have happened in the past.

And this makes it equivalent to a belief system.

What you think is historical evidence is what a religious person thinks is historical evidence from their perspective.

If it can't be repeated in real time then it isn't fully proven.

And please don't provide me the typical poor analogies similar to not observing the entire orbit of Pluto and yet we know it is a fact.

We all have witnessed COMPLETE orbits in real time based on the Physics we do understand.

Assuming evolution to be true, how did we start? Where did planets, space, time, and matter come from?