What are the strongest arguments for evolution?

[Another God]

I have recently started a blog in an effort to motivate myself to actually undertake some article writing which I have been wanting to do for years now.

The first of which is an article on Evolution which I aim to write as a persuasive argument against the lies presented by Creationists against Evolutionary theory, and finishing with a list of inductive arguments providing a very strong compelling case for evolutionary theory.

Ideally, in the end I have a paper which can be shown to any person who thinks there is an "evolution debate" and they will be able to quite clearly see that there isn't. (just like the nature vs nurture debate...it doesn't exist. Journalistic propaganda)

The first thing I have done while I start organising my thoughts is to offer $50 to Intelligent Design advocates out there for ANY argument provided by ID against evolution or in support of ID which doesn't fall victim to common logical fallacy. http://shanegreenup.blogspot.com/2006/08/challenge-to-intelligent-design.html"

It is a simple request and I make it willingly. The challenge isn't made only as a form of rhetoric, but also in an attempt to extricating a real argument from ID proponents. In my searches, all I ever find are fallacious claims, question begging, and ultimate referals to 'Well god says..'. So I hope to get a real attempt at a case against evolution, just for a well rounded perspective.

Secondly, and this is where I hope I can get some support from here. What compelling arguments are there for evolution?

There are many obvious ones. We have selectively bred species, no one can deny this, and therefore no one can deny variation. We have seen novel genes evolve within our lifetime as well as novel pathways. (breakdown of Nylon and breakdown of TNT)

i intend on doing a bit of F.I.S.H and genome research to try to establish the relatedness of species on account of their Junk DNA to show that they simply MUST (practically) have a common ancestor.

Can anyone else suggest any other strong cases which should be presented?

Thanks a lot!

Shane

 

[Another God]

And of course, I also intend on investigating some of the falsification principles of evolutionary theory. Quickly show how Evolution was presented as a solid scientific theory from the very beginning with obvious principles of falsification, and as our understanding of biology has increased we have failed time and time again to falsify its central tennants.

this is particularly important considering we have progressed from not understanding what the genetic material even was, to no having the complete Genomes of many species mapped entirely.

if Evolution was wrong, it would be very convincingly proven as such many years ago now.

Shane

 

[Rade]

Please define your concept of "evolution"--the term takes many forms. You will want to read this link:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

[Another God]

Please define your concept of "evolution"--the term takes many forms. You will want to read this link:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Really? Evolution REALLY needs to be defined? Does Neodarwinian evolution define it better? I thought it was pretty straight forward what evolution was..its a major Scientific paradigm, only the creationists like to split hairs over terminology and cause this sort of over-defining.

I'm simply talking about Variation in hereditary generations of organisms refined by natural selection. Put simply.

 

[Rade]

...I'm simply talking about Variation in hereditary generations of organisms refined by natural selection. Put simply.

Well then, you put it too simply. The modern synthesis among professional biologists debates roles of gene, individual, species as most appropriate unit of selection (Brandon & Burian, 1984, Genes, Organisms, Populations: Controversies over units of selection, MIT Press). Before your proceed please read this book--it has already provided all the answers to ID that you seek to post on you blog: Evolution vs Creationism, Eugenie C. Scott, 2004, U of California Press.

 

[Another God]

Of course I put it too simply, I refer to the concept by name, not by explicit definition. Leave the debating of the complete definition to those who feel compelled to do so. The principle tennets of evolutionary theory still remain the same, no matter how refined the peripheral attributes of the theory have become. And the core theory is the topic.

While the book probably does answer everything, just as The Blind Watch Maker attempted to do, and I am sure many others, I hope to write a paper which can be easily linked to only. So that people don't have to read a whole book to find the truth. Most creationists are creationists simply because they never have, and never will read a book on the subject.

Ideally, I think I will write a long paper which covers everything, then i will try tosummarise the paper into key points which will speak for themselves.

 

[selfAdjoint]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/misc/ten_assertions_public_consumption_2006.html" has a good discussion, with links, on several bloggers' attempts to come up with ten simple statements that the public ought to be taught about evolution. The guy who originally thought up the meme, Razib at GNXP, thought it was a no-brainer, but Hawks finds it leads him down some tough trails. As a scientist he doesn't want to leave all those terms undefined, but for really elementary education "for dummies", that's exactly what you have to do. Just as Brian Greene didn't do the math in his books.

 

[Phobos]

Best of luck on the blog, AG! I'll be sure to visit. Seems like blogs are my new addiction.