What evidence do you have to support evolution

[torpid python]

in all honesty, if you failed to find ANY scientific evidence in support of evolution, it does not seem likely to me that you're actually open to the idea that evolution might be a possibility

[halcyon dome]

How did Noah fit all 1.2 million species of animals on the ark?

[torpid python]

Here's a picture of how human heights differed throughout the long run of our existance, based on skeletons found within the ground.
This already shows how much change occurs within 1 species on our planet, through nutrition and living conditions.

[slow falcon]

I think you are going about this question wrong.

Evolution by natural selection is a theory with a multitude of scientific evidence suggesting that it is the mechanism with which life has come to be. Take the evidence as you will, that's your prerogative, but to say there is not ANY evidence is silly.

Similar to saying there is no evidence of God, therefore God doesn't exist. Equally silly. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Don't pose a question you don't want a genuine answer to...that is to say don't close your mind before engaging in discussion/thought.

[grave summit]

he didn't. Noah would only have needed 2 of every KIND of animal on the ark. which would be about 1,400 kinds. He did not need 2 bulldogs and 2 poodles. He just needed 2 dogs. The number of species would also include the many water creatures. The bible says he only took two of every kind of land animal.

[grave summit]

okay so this requires a distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. micro evolution is change over time within an animal kind. This is a clear scientific fact supported by evidence like what you provided and by other studies like that of Darwin's finches. However, micro evolution is not necessarily evidence of macro evolution which is where one kind changes into another kind. Reptile to bird instead of birds to a slightly different bird. It is this distinction which tends to cause so much confusion.

[torpid python]

moving the goalpost, gotcha

[grave summit]

sorry. That is what I had in mind, I just did not anticipate having to make the distinction myself.

[torpid python]

look at your first post, and tell me that shows any sign of "i mean macro not micro"

ANY evidence

[grave summit]

my mistake. I should have clarified Darwin's theory of evolution.

[grave summit]

You are free to feel that way. How I see it, evolution is suppose to be based in science so I expect to be able to find evidance to support it. You say there is a multitude of scientific evidence and I simply want to know what it is. I have not found any evidence the I think proves evolution. So engage me.

[halcyon dome]

Ah so each "kind" of animal that Noah took on the ark EVOLVED into the wide diversity of animals we have today?

[grave summit]

if you look above I just made this distinction with BMC. Micro evolution not Macro evolution

I will reword my openning post to try and avoid this confusioin for anyone else

[torpid python]

i would keep it the same

to show how we got from A to B

[halcyon dome]

That's literally macroevolution though. A doglike ancestor evolving into both a poodle and a wolf

[grave summit]

you think so or would people joining in late just keep asking?

[torpid python]

its also a is a good show of how moving the goalpost after an initial startingpoint alters the way the discussion continues

[final stone]

as far as macro evolution goes, it is difficult to find a hard prove, though there is a experiment running for 37 years to prove it at least exists conclusivly in bacteria, since they have a relatively short lifespan it is possible to get a ton of generations in a short time (for evolution purposes 37 years is really short)

might want to look at E. coli long-term evolution experiment

not sure if allowed to post links in here

[final stone]

i can see how it is not macro, since different dog races are able to interbreed into breedable offspring, they are still the same species

[grave summit]

Not quite because the dog is still a dog. macro evolution suggests that the dog becomes something it is not such as a monkey. (idk the tree well enough to know what it is suppose to go to)

[grave summit]

have not heard of that one I'll have to check it out

[halcyon dome]

You also do realize that with the Noah's Ark kinda evolution, you have evolution occuring at timescales way way faster than predicted by science. Like you need to go from like 20 or so kinda that go from the ark to the millions of species today in a few thousand years rather than billions

[final stone]

@grave summit what do you think about rudimentary organs in different animals, like the existence of rudimentary hip bones in snakes and rudimentary legs in whales?

[halcyon dome]

Like foxes and dogs can't interbreed, so either there's two ancestors on the ark, one for foxes and one for dogs, or they evolved from the same ancestor and underwent speciation

[grave summit]

yes an that is what we see. Darwin's finches are a prime example as new species were appearing within his life time. Also remember that many of the species live in the ocean and mess with the numbers

[grave summit]

maybe he did. The bible doesn't say. It could have happened either way. What we do know is he had plenty of room for them if he had to. If you are ever in Kentucky I highly recommend checking out the Ark Encounter. It is a full size rebuild of what we think the ark looked like and you can walk through and see just how big it was.

[halcyon dome]

okay nice we are 2/3 of the way there then. The last evolution postulate is that reproductive isolation (two populations that are unable to interbreed) eventually accumulate enough genetic variations to lead to speciation

[scenic dew]

Interesting question.
Personally thigh my experience of studying biology and animal behaviour I have observed adaptations across generations in natural and unnatural selection, evolution itself is deffined as an extension of adaptation over longer periods of time.

I can observe the sexual selection of yellow and red shrimps in my fish tank to select the brown phenotype of which is beneficial due to the offspring not being consumed and thus the gene is promoted and now I have almost entirely brown shrimp and no yellows and reds, this is adaptation through selection.
If we were to theories a hypothetical world where my fish tank lasts indefinatly soon a shrimp which is slightly larger may be selected due to offspring not being consumed lets say, over generations this creates a new species of larger shrimp and thus evolution has occurd.

To put it simply I belive in evolution myself as I have observed it and study it.

Must correct it's predation selecting brown shrimps not sexual, sexual would be more colourful selections.

Like that of the evolution of peacocks to have longer tails as females deem them more attractive and thus they mate more. The downside of this is birds with too long feathers suffer with flying and are selected by predation so male peackcocks exist in this limbo of how nice can I look without sacrificing my flight

[scenic dew]

I highly recommend searching for scientific journals discussing such subjects, they exist to be as unbiased as possible and are often the best choice for research.
Google scholar has plenty of free and some paid resources

[grave summit]

In both cases information is coming out that they are used in reproduction. To go along with how many parts that were considered rudimentary organs or bones in the past and have had uses discovered for them later on. I think given the number of rudimentary body parts which we have eventually found uses for it is likely that we will continue to find uses for others.

I gtg to class but I will be back later to answer more questions

[grave summit]

i am back

[grave summit]

In doing some research I must amend my former statement. Foxes would have had to be their own kind on the ark. I was not familiar with the connection between Foxes and dogs and you are correct they are different and would have to be separate.

The rest of your point I fail to understand. Could you try rewording it?

[grave summit]

I agree with what you are saying. Over time certain gene pools get removed because they do not work in this cursed world. However, the shrimp are still shrimp and are no closer to becoming something else. Everything you saw is a great example of microevolution at work. It does not however provide evidence in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution.

[final stone]

he basically means, that if 2 different populations are separated long enough (by for example a mountain range or something, similiar to the darwin birds) due to which they can not procreate in between both populations, there can be enough micro evolutions over time which will accumilate into two different species, which are similiar but can no longer create viable offspring together if the separation ends

and well with long enough period, we aren't exactly talking like a few thousand years, but closer to a few 10.000 years at least

[scenic dew]

unfortunately in the case of extreme evolution we require lengths of time of which we as mortal humans are incapable of observing.
The most extreme version of such a behaviour I can think of is that of Pakicetus which, through fossil records, we have discovered how aquatic mammals like whales happened, this started with a terrestrial mammal adapting to fish as they are more abundant.
Through millions of years of evolution minor adaptations promoted features of the modern whale as they are more efficient for survival and this proved successful as whales are one of the longest living species in the ocean.

The argument can be made for such a time span to not exist, if this is to be the case we must assume all geography relating to sediments to be false, carbon dating to not work and fossils?? I'm not sure.

Examples of evolutionary "scars" if you will exist on whales from their evolution. Such "scars" are the persistence of small limbs from their time as terrestrial beings.

[scenic dew]

this is a very interesting concept that i love hearing about! a great example of this is the influence climate change has had on polar bears and brown bears, as polar bears have migrated into unnatural territory and crossbred with brown bears they have produced a unique cross breed

[pallid shore]

https://biologos.org/common-questions#scientific-evidence

[scenic cloak]

Hi, if you are truly interested in understanding why evolution is considered as proven as it is, I'd recommend checking out some YouTube channels, which I'll recommend below. Also give you some more info about them to find a good fit for you. I don't think there are many qualified scientists in this discord to properly provide you the information needed, I can't call myself more than a nature lover and, by extension, have learned a lot about evolution.
The first channel I'd recommend is Forrest Valkai. He's such an amazing and happy easygoing person, and has fantastic series addressing many young earth misconceptions, as well as just talking about the fantastic world that is nature. His channel is focused around explaining the world around us and sharing his love for (and expertise in) biology and more. Throughly recommend him, this is where I'd start. I still watch all his videos.
Aaron Ra is another potentially interesting Channel. He is a very outspoken atheist, I believe because of a young earth religious background, before researching evolution and leaving religion. He's also highly educated in biology. His channel is more focused on debunking religious misconceptions, don't let his appearance scare you, he's a sweet guy. No longer up to date with his content, but for no particular reason.
I believe the channel is called Genetic Skeptic? Watched him many years ago, I know for sure he comes from a religious background before doing research and leaving religion. I haven't watched him in a long time, but he may be interesting to listen to for you.

[supple stag]

I think a lot of people get to caught up in having to adapt Darwin´s theories into evolutionary understanding, it is probably only still called evolution, because the process mimics what he described originally, very well.

A few points I think we can all agree on.

1. DNA exists and is essentially a blueprint for biological information in all multicell-structured lifeforms.

2. DNA can change and this changes the expression of the subject, relative to the change in DNA.

So then if we want to add some more modern visualization tools, let´s take the RPG stat elements.

Let´s take an ape, the overall stat allocation by DNA is irrelevant, but let´s agree it has stats in hair growth, strength, intellect and tool usage.

Now let´s say this ape has a son, the son has roughly the same stat allocation as the father, the difference being, he has 1 point less in hair growth and strength, but 1 point more in intellect and tool usage.

Let´s say we repeat this stat change each generation for 1000 generations.

What does an ape with 1000 points of strength and hair growth less, and 1000 points of intellect and tool usage greater than his ancestor look like?

Could this maybe be an ape which has relatively no hair, and uses various forms of tools to compensate for his lack of strength?

The point being that people get to hung up on actual species, and forget that since DNA is in basically every living being on the planet, all that really differentiates us, is simply how our DNA is expressed, and Darwinian evolution simply expresses how he surmises that to have happened to various species over hundreds of years, without knowledge about DNA.

[merry tide]

OK, so what you're after specifically is evidence of larger evolutionary changes.

Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

I guess, let us know if you have any questions after making your way through all of that.

[small flame]

I am a young earth creationist

well, that says about everything...

I fail to find ANY scientific evidence to support it

There are two possibilities:
Option A: This is a blatant lie, as there are many discussions and debates readily available on the web on this very topic between renowned scientists and young earth creationists where the scientists provide an abundance of evidence. Those are literally as easy to find as typing "evolution debate" into the Youtube search bar.
Option B: You refuse to see any evidence that renowned Scientists bring forth in the aforementioned debates as scientific evidence.

In both cases, a discussion with you on this matter here is utterly pointless. The quality of response you're going to get here is not going to be as high as in those debates, and if you refuse to acknowledge evidence as such, you'll never be satisfied, no matter what we say.

Questions are always put to me to prove my beliefs

Belief isn't based on evidence, or reason, or logic. Therefore it cannot be proven, either. Maybe you should remind the ppl asking you these questions of that.
In my experience, nobody will ever get mad at someone who says something along the lines of "That's my belief, cause it just feels right to me.". What ppl DO get mad about, however (and rightfully so, I might add), is when ppl say things along the lines of "You are wrong! The earth isn't that old. It was created by god.". Belief itself is fine. Imposing it on others is not.

[scenic dew]

Well said.
In terms of research materials we have access to such a wide range of information whether that be books, videos or journals.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the work of hundreds of thousands of people towards the exact subject has clearly gone into a discussion with a pre determined bias and is not willing to discuss but rather defend what they find to be factual.

[dense anchor]

From my basic understanding. It's very simple. For micro evolution it is practically undeniable due to its ability to be observed in real time. Macro is harder to 'believe' for creationists due to it being on such an unquantifiable timescale its hard to picture. But for macro it's just defined by speciation I think. And this is similarly undeniable. We were chimps, now we cant mate with chimps and produce fertile off spring. The argument for creationism is not in tune with modern science.

[mild cliff]

This is just denial of evidence. If you agree that wolfs and dogs come from a common ancestor and are not individually created, then you agree with the concept of speciation and therefore you indirectly affirm the notion of macroevolution

the same goes for claiming that noahs ark only needed "kinds'' of animals and not species, whatever that may mean

Even if that were true, than that undeniably confirms the existence of macro evolution

as then speciation has happened between the Ark and today

But in my experience, a lot of people that deny the existence of evolution find it very hard to understand that it is a fluid process and not some pre-determined path with clear boundaries

[mild cliff]

And you unironically believe that it was big enough to hold 2 of each ''kind'' of animal?

But to answer your question, the most convincing evidence in my opinion for evolution is molecular biology / biochemistry

[halcyon dome]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1047996288114892882/1172297153692041236/Orchard-Model.jpg?ex=65ce8bcd&is=65bc16cd&hm=afcd22c9207f6d365dc01a4506e4c53f45eeae87580bfeeead3545d61dfd7ba7&
This is usually what christian ark science is referring to with kinds

its a weird affirmation of evolution, because now you have speciation happening on the scale of thousands of years rather than billions but there are some oddities like foxes and dogs where they can't interbreed, and therefore are two seperate "kinds" according to flood evolution, but are clearly close ancestors

not to mention that i'm pretty sure you still couldn't fit everything on the ark if you take one "kind" of each animal

[halcyon dome]

did some more reading on this point, Darwin's finches are still an example of speciation and macro evolution, because there are some finches who can't interbreed at all. I don't think Darwin knew this but we do now

[small flame]

Just as a sidenote: Darwin isn't the be all end all, he just started the field, of course he wasn't perfect and of course we know more now than he knew then. That doesn't invalidate field itself.

[tepid bolt]

where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution?
as far as evidence, you need to understand that many many micro evolutions lead to a macroevolution, there was a study on a species of lizard that were taken to a different island than their natural habitat, and then were allowed to breed naturally in the new island, scientist come back a little over 35 years later, and they literally grow cecal valves, something that has to do with digestion, which not only did the previous species not have, but is generally very uncommon in lizard species. now is evolving to have a new body part to support the difference in diet not evolution? is that not drastic enough? scientist arent suggesting that one mutation can change a lizard to a bird, but small changes over the span of millions of years can change lizards to birds if the environment provides a benefit to be that thing

this is the lizard paper, im sure theres more stuff done on it since then, but heres one paper, and you can do more research into it if you wish

[merry tide]

It would be about 100,000 animals. But you would also need to find space for about 200,000 arachnids and 2 million insects.

The Bible tells us how big the Ark was, and apparently it had a floor area of about 12,000m^2. So in every square metre of floor space, there would need to be about 8 animals, 16 arachnids, and 160 insects. That would be "a bit on the cosy side". But of course, you'd also need to take up a ton more space for food, to feed the animals for at least 2 years before any new food can grow again. So even if the animals only needed 10 times their own volume in food for a couple of years, now we're looking at a minimum of 80 animals, 160 arachnids and 1600 insects per square metre.

So we'll call that a big nope. It's not logistically possible. As well as being nonsense for all the other reasons.

[tepid bolt]

i think the only way for the story of noahs ark to makes sense is to believe that animals can evolve, that there can be different speciation and changes in such, so noah just took the common ancestors of each, then they evolved after the fact,
but to believe that and be a young earth creationist, you would have to believe that evolution can happen orders of magnitude faster than it actual does
i like the theory that "days" in the bible aren't equal to the days we have now, that maybe theres something wrong with the units of time not matching up and these 2 theories can actually combine and then we just disagree on the main topic of life sprouting from nothing