Evidence FOR Evolution

This Post contains “Evidence for Evolution” submitted by readers, followed by responses.

Submission 11/08/18.   Completely Anonymous. 

Evolution of the Horse!

There is a huge amount of (dis)information on the internet and elsewhere about the supposed evolution of the horse over 55 million years. Evolutionist (Note, Evolutionist, not Creationist) Boyce Rensberger’s statement hits the nail on the head:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.

(My bolding in the above quote.) As with all gradual, alleged evolution, the essential transitional fossils are missing. The alleged transitional fossils are actually distinct species, which themselves lack evidence of their own evolution. It must be remembered that Darwin’s theory involves inorganic molecules gradually changing into men; fuzzy stories about one four-legged mammal turning into another four-legged mammal are very definitely not profound evidence for the first of these propositions. But such invalid evidence is regularly presented as the best there is. The huge amount of information on the web regarding horse evolution makes it clear that it is of great importance in proving evolution. Normally, nobody would put forward weak or flawed evidence in hopes of winning a debate. Evolutionists do it in this case because there is no better evidence. And if the alleged horse evolution is as good as it gets, evolution has around four less legs to stand on than the horse.

A further point is that many of the alleged evolutionary trees, at least in part, show one kind of horse evolving into another. This is simply Variation within a Kind, not Darwinian “one thing changes into something completely different.”


Submission 5/08/19.       From “Artist”.

The fact that most living things on earth, from sea life, flora, fauna, insects etc have somehow adapted survival adaptations that give them a better chance of survival in their surroundings, ie. Changing colours, some toxic defences maybe disgustes. Just the slightest advantage to give a exist, I’m an artist, but evolution is apparent in all walks of life.

Notice first the statement “have somehow adapted”. This kind of statement from evolutionists is common. Like much of evolution theory it is mere assumption, not evidence. The full argument goes something like this: “We know these organisms have somehow adapted because they are not designed by a Creator. And we know there is no Creator because evolution is true.” This is a classic circular argument: Evolution is true because there is no God; there is no God because evolution is true.  The statement, although only an assumption, is also prefaced with “The fact“. The view that organisms are finely tuned to their environment is indeed a readily observable fact, but the assertion that this comes about by some random, natural process  is not. That’s what the debate is about.

And the end of his piece the writer says “evolution is apparent in all walks of life”. This is the same argument restated: “The fine design we see in living things must be evidence for evolution. It cannot be evidence of a Creator because we know there is no Creator.” The argument completely fails to distinguish evidence from assumption, or science from prejudice. 

It’s nice that the writer acknowledges that he is an artist, not a scientist. This too is typical of evolutionists, who expound the view that no scientific knowledge is needed to make an assessment of Darwin’s theory. That’s interesting, since nobody would, for example, give a judgement on a proposed operation by a Brain Surgeon; people accept that they simply lack the knowledge to do so. Why then, do people so readily affirm Darwinism? The answer is that to research it properly and honestly would bring them face to face with the Creator, to whom they have responsibility. Just doing your own thing, living your own way, appears to be more attractive.

Straight talking is here is not evidence of lack of appreciation or gratitude to those making submissions. Replies are given with respect to all.