Theoretical Evidence

A quick reminder of the evidences that we need to look at in the non-scientific case for evolution:

2.1 Biochemical evidence - the similarity of life

2.2 Phylogenetic evidence - The tree of life

2.3 Palaeontological evidence - transitional fossils

2.4 Anatomical evidence

2.4.1 Vestigial Structures

2.4.2 Atavisms

2.4.3 Comparative anatomy and embryology

2.4.4 Imperfectness of design

2.5 Biogeographical evidence - Geographical distribution and finch beaks

2.6 Experimental/observational evidence

2.7 Theoretical evidence

2.7.1 Time

2.7.2 Fancy terminology and theories

2.1 The similarity of life

This is considered by many pro-evolutionists to be the most compelling evidence they have for evolutionary theory. The fact that all life shares the

More than that, the more closely related species are, the more similar their DNA make-up is. For example, the human and chimpanzee DNA make-up is much more a similar than that of a Blue Whale and a Golden Eagle. Now of course, relatedness can still not be proved here and an inference is required to establish that DNA similarities are the result of common descent and evolution. So, the question really is, how big of an inference is this? Without looking at other pieces of evidence, this is clearly a big inference. As said earlier, just because two items are made from the same material, it does not mean that one originated from the other. Surely it is reasonable to presume that in order to make life, the core ingredient DNA (or RNA) is required and the more similar a creature is the more similar its DNA

It therefore seems logical to deduce that when species change, each new characteristic would have to develop independently of the other. For example, a cow-like creature changing into a whale, which is one of the proposed changes of evolutionary theory, is not a simple case of one mutation occurring and then all of a sudden a cow gives birth to a whale. A series of changes has to happen - the nostrils would need to fuse together and move back over the head to form a blowhole, the teeth would need to become more simple and peg-like, the snout would have to elongate, the neck shrink, the back become more flexible to aid swimming, the hands become flipper-like, the legs and pelvis reduce and disappear, and the bones become denser. Now, not only is it likely that each positive change is happening independently, but also that each change is gradual, i.e. the neck shrinks in stages, the nostrils move back gradually, etc. Therefore, there are multiple steps of microevolution happening before the macroevolution occurs. This means there should be multiple significantly morphologically different creatures between a cow and a whale with several being termed new species (due to the differences being considered significant enough to deem them so). “Significantly morphologically different” implies that it is not the