Why Evolution Is True

by Jerry A. Coyne

So natural selection does not yield perfection—only improvements over what came before.

Nope, it doesn't make anything "better". It only selects what is already there. If you gave me 4 knives to choose from, and I selected the sharpest one, did I make it better? No. It was already sharp. I just selected it because the other were dull. This is natural selection and it has no power beyond that.

If speciation is true, for instance, then common ancestry must also be true.

What? Did he just say that if speciation is true then common ancestry is true? Seriously? If what we observe in nature (speciation) is true, then this far-fetched story that all organisms evolved magically from one organism billions of years ago must be true? Why? How have we come to that conclusion. Sorry, I must not have gotten as confused with all of the switch-a-roos as you meant for me to. And this guy is a science teacher?

Evolution might occur, for example, but it need not occur gradually.

So why can't we see it happening?

Some “mutationists” in the early twentieth century thought that a species could instantly produce a radically different species via a single monster mutation.

Yup, they thought this because your idea is bankrupt of evidence. Why would people on your side completely go the opposite direction if the evidence was so strong? Makes no sense.

Similarly, the theory of evolution is more than just the statement that “evolution happened”: it is an extensively documented set of principles—I’ve described six major ones—that explain how and why evolution happens.

It is a disgrace to science that evolution is considered a "theory". It was a hypothesis that should have been squashed 50 years ago when DNA was discovered.

Similarly, a good theory makes predictions about what we should find if we look more closely at nature. And if those predictions are met, it gives us more confidence that the theory is true.

If they say this enough, they hope you believe it. The only theories that are ever supported by evolution are the ones that they modeled their theory around - like the "tree of life". Again, circular logic.

As we’ll see, it is possible that despite thousands of observations that support Darwinism,

Really? Have you mentioned any of them yet? I may have missed it.

but scientists, unlike zealots, can’t afford to become arrogant about what they accept as true.

Yeah right. Good one. Ever see Ben Stein's documentary - Expelled - about the "scientific" community and how it blackballs anyone who opposes Darwin? Tell me that evolutionary scientists are open minded. Ha! Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

• Since there are fossil remains of ancient life, we should be able to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing “descent with modification” (adaptation).

Once again, this isn't a prediction. Darwin knew of this when he wrote his book. This inspired him to come up with the idea of evolution. Of course, additional fossils have been found since then and many of them fit the model created - but many of them do not. There are so many truths that fly in the face of evolution.

• We should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild.

Again, new species has nothing to do with macro-evolution. That isn't a prediction of evolution. That is a prediction of genetics and how species are formed. See this article about how quickly new species can form and how it has NOTHING to do with evolution. https://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

• We should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians. Moreover, these “missing links” (more aptly called “transitional forms”) should occur in layers of rock that date to the time when the groups are supposed to have diverged.

Ludicrous. Again, yes, you should be able to find billions of missing links - but you have not. You do not have the evidence you are claiming. This is just so deceptive is hard to read.

• We should expect that species show genetic variation for many traits (otherwise there would be no possibility of evolution happening).

What? Evolution predicts genetic variation? How does the idea that mutations create new information predict genetic variation? That's silly. Clearly from observing the finches and from observing animals and people over the last few thousand years, we knew that there was genetic diversity. Why else would a son look different than his father and mother yet the same? Evolution does not predict genetic diversity - it may assume it - but that isn't the same thing.

• Imperfection is the mark of evolution, not of conscious design. We should then be able to find cases of imperfect adaptation, in which evolution has not been able to achieve the same degree of optimality as would a creator.

This is entirely subjective and absurd. I thought we were talking about science not theology. First of all, nearly all of these crazy suggestions that the design we see is flawed has been shown to be foolish. How many until this is dumb to continue? Secondly, how about looking at all of the designs that are clearly miraculous? You don't think the human brain is kind of impressive? You want to talk about how the appendix isn't useful (when it is) or the whale has a random hip for no reason (used for mating). Give it up people.

We should be able to see natural selection acting in the wild.

Uh...yea, ok. So the thing that Darwin witnessed happening for 10 years and which Edward Blythe wrote about 25 years before Darwin did - that foundational principle that says when it is cold outside things that don't like cold won't do as well...you would expect to see that? Duh. Again, not a prediction if your theory was based on it. Prediction definition: "a statement about what you think will happen in the future"; "the prediction of future behavior". Good grief.

These are the subjects of chapters 3 and 4.

Can't wait for all of this evidence...

then, makes predictions that are bold and clear.

LOL. Is it bold to predict something that you already know or at least think you know? Wow.

As we’ll see, all the evidence—both old and new—leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is true.

Well, this chapter didn't do you any favors. All I heard was, "Here's something that actually happens...and if you believe that, then you should believe this made-up thing about evolution because it kind of seems like the same thing." Not today buddy...not today.