How Does Research Show Evidence For Evolution?

Nature is highly complex with specified information in living organisms. So how do evolutionary scientists go about and showing the public how parts evolved? Take one of the more recent studies about the difference between the chewing of fish and mammals. Science Daily promises the readers this…“New research from Brown University shows chewing has evolved too.” Wow, sounds like they are going to demonstrate in real-time this remarkable feat? No, not quite! So let’s take a look at the evidence that was offered up from such a profound statement.

1) “Lungfish, which is believed to represent an early stage in the transition of some species from exclusively water- to land-dwelling.”

2) “Next came the task of figuring out where, when and with what species the divergence in chewing emerged. The thinking is that the transition likely occurred among amphibians.”

3) “The evolutionary divergence is believed to have occurred with amphibians…”

4) “The difference in chewing shows that animals have changed the way they chew and digest their food and that evolution must have played a role.”

How many times does one read about the promises of break through research about evolution and it falls flat? This is a typical example of gaps that get filled with assumptions! It’s not the fact one can answer, it is what you answer it with. Did commentary on how they believed or invoking evolution that it must have played a role in its creation enlighten anything about nature? Was this hard evidence of showing that chewing evolved as promised by Science Daily? Absolutely not!

This is once again, circular reasoning based on blind faith! A story that is assumed to be true with nothing more than human imagination. The real science conducted here was discovering how fish and mammals chew in different ways which is the actual observation.


31 thoughts on “How Does Research Show Evidence For Evolution?

  1. Michael: “Nature is highly complex with specified information in living organisms.”

    Highly complex, sure, some of it is.
    But specified information ?? Would you care to elaborate what you actually mean by that ?
    You’re simply referring to Dembski’s stuff, perhaps ?

  2. Well hi there, noreligion,

    You say, “You really should learn what the difference between evolutionary change and the theory of evolution is.”

    So you say The ‘theory’ of evolution is different than evolutionary change. There was no transitions between the way fish and mammals chew presented in the research. Despite the fact that no one knows what the first vertebrate looked like, so how can you learn from what you don’t know of and never seen in nature? It’s similar to the dark matter hypothesis were they have no clue what it actually is in terms of particles nor have hey directly observed it but still make predictions from it. In 2006, it was claimed there was direct evidence for dark matter then in 2007, nature said no one knows what dark matter is but theorists had created many different hypothetical particles as suspects.

    And another note, major phyla appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record which since a 1994 paper and in a more recent paper stated Darwin being wrong about sudden appearances of fossils in the record because he was under the assumption of slow and gradual and as a result, it was invoked that the ‘theory’ of evolution predicted its all of a sudden there the animals is, rapid pace (is this what you mean by observing it?). This is the religion of evolution based on blind faith not a “theory.”

    Lungfish were pointed out in this study as their belief or main suspect to be ancestors, but lung development has made this an unlikely ancestral group! They also had another option with Tiktaalik fossils but that had it problems too with the absence of the hind limbs leaves this an unlikely scenario. The only change that happens in nature are variants within a kind. Now that is what I call observation! :)

  3. Nice try, ‘noreligion’.

    But Michael won’t learn.

    Like with dark matter. We have lots of clues what these particles are. Michael keeps on insisting that “we don’t have a clue”. Which is simply not true. We don’t know the answer yet, but we are absolutely not clueless.

  4. Eleco,

    You say, “We have lots of clues what these particles are.”There are hundreds of those clues in the dark matter hypothesis but you are not really sure if any one of those clues that you are aware of are the answer or if new clues are required in the future to detect dark matter particles (if there is such a thing) because you no clue what your really looking for as a result of not being able to observe on what your looking for.

  5. Nah, just a few good clues (like a minimum mass, for example). And of course we are not sure. Scientists never are. But that is not the same as being clueless, which is what you claimed.

    And of course we have observed dark matter: few astronomers doubt this anymore. But feel to ignore whatever you want to ignore: that is your way of life anyway, it seems.

  6. Going from evolution to dark matter? Talk about cognitive dissonance. Sorry guys but you can waste your time with this science denier if you want but I am going to treat him just like I do other CT nuts, I am going to ignore him and not lose brain cells by listening to his tripe.

  7. Eelco,

    That “minimum mass” is 90 to 96 percent unknown. So how can a fact be 90 to 96 percent unknown? No you haven’t observed dark matter, if so you could make an ID on its particles. Last year at a dark matter conference at UCLA the main focus was on detectors, not detections. Dark matter was invoked because there is not enough visible matter to keep the universe together or you don’t fully understand it.

  8. Poor Micheal …

    I was referring to the mass of the dark matter particle, not the mass fraction in the unverse !!
    We know what the minimum mass of the dark matter particle should be.

    Reading is hard, isn’t it ?

    I also have no idea where you get the 90-96 percent from.

  9. I also have no idea where you get the 90-96 percent from.

    I think Michael is referring to the total amount of “non-normal” stuff in the universe. That fraction would include both dark matter and dark energy. Which again demonstrates Michael’s ignorance of the subject.

    Or, it could refer to the fraction of Michael’s brain cells that have lost power.

  10. @Olorin:
    indeed, although strictly speaking the total amount of any stuff in ‘the’ universe is probably infinite, which is why we (cosmologists) talk about dimensionless fractions …

    But this is making it even harder for those remaining brain cells.

    The 96% indeed includes dark energy, not just dark matter. The latter is roughly 23%.

  11. That “minimum mass” is 90 to 96 percent unknown. So how can a fact be 90 to 96 percent unknown?

    Easy. For example, the capital of Tajikistan is 96% unknown.

    Michael’s mistake, however, is to believe that the truth of a fact depends upon how well it is known.

  12. So how do evolutionary scientists go about and [sic] showing the public how parts evolved? . . . . Wow, sounds like they are going to demonstrate in real-time this remarkable feat? No, not quite! So let’s take a look at the evidence that was offered up from [sic] such a profound statement.

    This time, Michael’s reading comprehension has failed at the macro level. He has misapprehended the entire purpose of the Brown investigation.

    The paper investigated the mechanics of chewing among two very different types of animals. Its purpose was to point out differences in structure and behavior in order to find differences in the function of the tongue.

    References to evolution were set aside for future work. This is why the authors did not present any findings as “evidence” of a specific evolutionary path, but only their speculation—

    The evolutionary divergence is believed to have occurred with amphibians, though further research is needed to identify which species and when. [Emphasis supplied]

    They also invoked evolution as a pointer toward future research—to investigate animals that are “believed” to lie on the path between fish and mammals: “Konow said, and he plans to look next at amphibian chewing….. ‘that’s the next step on the evolutionary ladder’.”

    So, Michael, the Brown authors did not even attempt to present any of their findings as “evidence” for evolution. The next step will be determining where, when, and how this aspect of evolution occurred. As they made perfectly clear to everyone except hair-trigger creationists.


    As noted many times here in the past, Michael has an incorrigibly wrong notion of the object of evolutionary research.

    He equates it to creation apologetics, whose only goal is to purloin a new finding from real scientists and stuff it into some model of special creation. Once the creationist can show that the finding is—or can be made to be—consistent with some aspect of a young universe, his job is finished. He doesn’t even care whether the model produced by the new finding is consistent with the models he has proposed from other findings. As soon as it can be forced to fit, his work is done: “Aha! Creation happened! See?”

    On the other hand, almost no scientific research is undertaken for the purpose of confirming whether or not evolution actually happened. The 2,400 scientific papers per year in this field are all devoted to showing HOW a particular aspect of evolution happened, or WHY it occurred, or WHEN it took place, or what mechanism can account for a particular change.

    These are activities that reveal new understanding of the world around us. Creationism produces no understanding—the best it could ever hope for is confirmation of an existing belief. But not new knowledge—because they already “know” the answer.

  13. *yawns*

    Nothing new here. This has become ten of the most boring blogs I read.
    No, that was not a typo.

  14. This has become ten of the most boring blogs I read.

    Well, thanks a bunch :-(

  15. What I mean is that Michael’s posts are getting really boring, even considering that they were already predictable. If he talks about cosmology, it’s “evolution.” If he talks about geology, it’s “evolution.” It gets dull when he doesn’t offer much more than that.

    Sorry. I was not aiming the “boring” charge at you, Olorin.
    I should have been more clear.

  16. Hey all,

    Let me just publish Michael’s next topic for him. ICR has just published a new page on pre-historic dinosaur tissue. (Link: )

    I guess this means evolution is false, the world is only 6,000 years old, and all who believe the earth is young shall be saved. All who believe it is old shall burn in hell for eternity, and..whatever. No explanation besides a young earth is acceptable, no matter how scientific of substantiated.

    Yeah, yeah… the whole tired, repeated argument that has been repeated here on Michael’s blog et nauseam.

    Just thought I would save Michael the trouble of repeating himself for once.

    We all know Michael uses popular publications like Science Daily for his posts. He then uses hyped up articles with no-peer review to claim that Evolution has been falsifies. — Just today on Science Daily, there is a new article on how mice use their senses to sniff out predators from urine and avoid them. (Link: ). — Now, how does this falsify evolution? I haven’t the foggiest. But rest assured that it does! Nature could not possibly do such a thing, so God did it…or whatever.

  17. Here is an article from Fox News:

    Human Belly Button Home to Hundreds of Never-Before-Seen SpeciesCall it a twist on the study of gut bacteria.
    Scientists sampling DNA strains from the navels of volunteer donors have found 662 microbes that are apparently new to science, showing that the human navel is apparently a ripe environment for bacteria.

    Great. There, now we know. Adam and Eve may not have had a belly button, but Cain and Able sure had seen a rise of new species arise right at their navels.

    My question for a creationist would be: Did God create these species before or after Cain and Able were born?

    (Link: )

  18. Just one more, and I’ll give it a rest.

    Michael, i know you are so certain that Evolution is anti-religion. I have a YouTube video that argues the exact opposite. I’ve known about it a long time..

    Just take a look.

  19. My recurring question is: why is Michael so obsessed with ‘evolution’ ?
    The obsession explains the endless repetitions, the constant use of the word ‘evolutionary’ wherever he can but shouldn’t, etc. etc.: but why this obsession ?

  20. Re: “boring”

    We get so used to creationists having had their humor detectors removed at birth. Sometimes ours get a little dulled also :-)

  21. Re: Boring

    Michael is a theme with limited variations. Actually, only two, that repeat over and over.

    The first is the argument from ignorance, coupled with a false dichotomy: Scientists don’t know everything; in fact, sometimes they are wrong. Therefore, if scientists do not know every detail of all evolutionary paths, then evolution is not correct. Then, if evolution is not correct, special creation has to be true. Stated this starkly, the fallacies are obvious. The task of creationists is to shuffle the facts around in such a blur that we lose sight of this simple progression. Just as a thimble-rigger moves his shells around so fast that the rubes can’t see him dump the pea into his pocket.[2]

    The second is the argument from personal incredulity, again coupled with false dichotomy. Evolution, they say, defies common sense; molecules-to-man is simply unimaginable. If evolution is nonsensical, then the universe must have been designed—No other alternative can be imagined. One of the chief techniques here is the plausible analogy. DNA is “like” a code that humans design; birds wings are “like” wings that we design for airplanes. The fact that analogies are not evidence of anything is made to disappear.

    These two arguments constitute the entire oeuvre of creationism in general, and of this blog in particular. That’s why it is boring.[3]


    Michael titles his blog “New Discoveries and Comments About Creation.” In the several years I’ve followed it, Michael has not come up with one single “discovery” about creation. Not one. He has not reported any observations of an act of special creation. No positive evidence that creation happened suddenly 6-10K years ago. All he has ever attempted is negative evidence as to this or that aspect of evolution, cosmology, or the existence of hot chicken soup.


    [1] “Evolution” is used here as a catch-all for any science that contradicts creationism. That’s the way that Michael uses the term.

    [2] Just as in a shell game, their favorite tactic in debates is to change the subject, so that they can control the topics until everyone else loses sight of the original question—which the creationist could not answer.

    [3] Although one can almost marvel at the number of ways in which creationists can tangle facts into giant stringballs.

  22. @Olorin: fair enough, arguments from ignorance and from personal incredulity are standard creationist fare … but why the obsession with ‘evolution’ ?

  23. @Eelco,

    Because “evolution” in Michael’s world, if true, is the verification of Atheism. To Michael, if Evolution is true, then God cannot possibly exist.

    I have already suggested a long time ago that Michael obsesses over evolution in his posts for the top purpose of convincing only himself. It was certainly my motivation back in my old creationist days. He thinks that if he can convince himself that evolution is false, then it is false.

  24. Speaking of evolution, creationism has turned up again in a peer-reviewed jhournal: But Michael may not be so happy about this one: Senter P., “Using Creation Science to Demonstrate Evolution: Morphological Continuity within Dinosauria.”[1]

    Senter uses the creationist literature itself to show that dinosaurs must evolved rapidly:

    Whether there were eight dinosaur ‘kinds’ or 50, the diversity within each ‘kind’ is enormous. Acceptance that such diversity arose by natural means in only a few thousand years therefore stretches the imagination. The largest dinosaurian baramin recovered by this study includes Euparkeria, basal ornithodirans (Silesaurus and Marasuchus), basal saurischians, basal ornithischians, basal sauropodomorphs, basal thyreophorans, nodosaurid ankylosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, basal ceratopsians, basal ornithopods and all but the most birdlike theropods in an unbroken spectrum of morphological continuity. The creationist viewpoint allows for diversification within baramins, but the diversity within this morphologically continuous group is extreme. Also, the inclusion of the Middle Triassic non-dinosaurs Euparkeria and Marasuchus within the group is at odds with the creationist claim that fossil representatives of the predinosaurian, ancestral stock from which dinosaurs arose have never been found (DeYoung, 2000; Ham, 2006; Bergman, 2009)

    Read the summary at href=””>Panda’s Thumb. Creationists will no doubt cite this peer-reviewed papaer gleefully, evwen though it destroys their position with their own methods. Oh well.


    [1] Journal of Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x.

  25. @Eelco: Yeah, PZ Myers posted it originally, and then cross-posed to Panda’s Thumb. I usually cite original sources where possible, but slipped this time.

    I’d like to see the original paper, but it’s probably subscription-only.

  26. Olorin,

    There is yet another fact that verifies evolution….from Creationism itself: the fact that Creationism itself has evolved greatly.

  27. In other news, a New Gallup Poll shows that only 3 in 10 Americans take the Bible literally. The poll also shows that the higher the educational attainment reached, the less likely the Christian is to take it as the “actual” word of God, though taking it as “inspired is a different matter.

    Also, interestingly enough, ONLY 46% of Conservatives take it “literally,” while 45% of Conservatives see it as “inspired” and NOT at the “actual word” of God. – 7% of Conservatives see it as a “book of legends.” — I wonder, this is a majorty of Conservatives that disagree with Michael’s position that the Bible is the “actual word” of God (45+7=52%). — Of course Michael may claim that these “conservatives” are not really conservatives.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s