More of what? What would that evidence have to look like? Let’s take evidence for human evolution. What more evidence would you need to be able to conclude we share common ancestry with other apes?
1 Like
If I have a doppelganger out there, does that prove she’s my sister? 
Phenotype isn’t as strong of evidence as genotype.
Well, that is encouraging. 
Oh.
So I guess you were just joking. 
No amount of evidence will convince you to accept evolution, but anything a creationist writes, no matter how ludicrous, is good evidence in your eyes. 
1 Like
No, I should be skeptical of it too.
What genetic evidence would you need to see for common ancestry between humans and chimps?
2 Likes
Yet you aren’t. 
You just swallow every bit of creationist foolishness hook, line and sinker. 
Look at how vigorously you defend Sanford, despite not having read or understood his book. 
You see Jesus shining from him, and that’s all that matters. 
2 Likes
Funny you should mention that. Why don’t you think about this: Why do more closely related people generally look more alike? To a first approximation the more distantly related, the more dissimilar in appearance. Take a look at a large family tree going back many generations and the dissimilarity will seem to increase with passing generations. The direct offspring look the most like their immediate parents.
This pattern is observed in the pictures of the fossils in my previous post. The further back in time, the less like anatomically modern humans do the fossils become.
Now combine that fossil evidence (which fits the evolutionary expectation) with the genetic evidence too, and answer my question: What more do you need? What would it have to look like? What we currently have is apparently not enough for you. Okay, then give an example of something that would improve that case? And what would it take to convince you? Can you even imagine that?
The genetic evidence for common ancestry is even stronger, so that’s no help to you. I still have to ask, what would that evidence have to look like to convince you?
1 Like
I hope you’re enjoying including all the emojis and laughing out loud to yourself while you do so. Because it’s amazing and everyone needs laughter in their life. 
First, what would convince you that evolutionary origins aren’t true? Can you imagine that?
That’s easy. If the fossil record showed every single organism that has ever existed was already there at the earliest stages, and no new forms arose at any point from then to the present, and if life could not be categorized into a nested hierarchy, then no one would have even suggested evolution as an explanation for how the diversity of life arose. It would not have crossed anyone’s mind.
3 Likes
First, stop trying to change the subject.
Second, if there was no nested hiearchy, I would not infer common descent. To reject evolution as an explanation for origins regardless of common descent, I would need there to be no mechanism of imperfect inheritance (no mutations, no genetic recombination). That is to say, if reproduction was absolutely perfect (offspring were always perfect clones) then evolution would be impossible.
Now answer my question.
1 Like
But we both agree that evolutionary biology exists. So you aren’t actually imagining anything. Special creation doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology can’t ever exist.
You think the fossil record shows every single organism that has ever existed?
I agree that evolution is an explanation for how the diversity of life arose, at least in part.
What would convince me evolution is true? Creating life in a lab…new genetic discoveries that showed additional information being created in the human genome - that we may become the common ancestor of a new organism someday X-men style.
The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that predicts a nested hierarchy in the fossil record, which is exactly what we see.
What about the mutations that separate humans and chimps?
No.
Why do you ask? 
Which is besides the point. 
You asked what kind of evidence would lead one to conclude that “evolutionary origins aren’t true.”
I could have worded my response a bit more clearly. We could never know if every single species that ever existed was represented in the fossil record. 
However, if we saw no faunal succession, i.e. if every single species represented at any point of the fossil record was also present at the earliest level, then evolution would be untenable as a theory.
Do you not agree? 
2 Likes
You’re insulting your own intelligence and mine by saying essentially “if we didn’t see something that we do see, then evolution would be untenable.” It’s a circular argument.
Partially answered here. Show forward evolution is observed.
If God wanted us to understand how the genome or body functions, then we couldn’t have had all specially created genomes or body plans that are completely dissimilar. God made our world to be understandable but also exciting to uncover.
We observe the mutations that separate chimps and humans.
1 Like
How on earth do you get that from what I wrote?
Is it also circular to argue “Since the volume and mass of the sun has been measured to be greater than that of the earth, the hypothesis that the sun is larger than the earth is confirmed”?
What is “forward evolution”? 
2 Likes
Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for something on the order of 200,000 years with very limited genetic changes. There have been nutritional changes that mean, for example, that most modern humans won’t fit in medieval armor, but few genetic changes.
Human generations are on the order of 20 years, so that’s only 10,000 generations. We would not expect to see dramatic genetic changes in so few generations.
Certainly within the span of modern science since Darwin, there’ve been maybe 7 generations. Within a human life span, 3-4 generations. We would definitely not expect to be seeing large genetic changes in humans on those sorts of timescales.
Refuting a prediction a theory does not make does not refute the theory.
2 Likes
You will have to explain what you’re talking about here. I can guarantee that it isn’t what you think it is.
Then, once again, here’s some genotype:
2 Likes
Does your development from a single cell make sense to you?