Part 2
3. I'm going to skip this one
4. There's a lot to cover for this one. An often cited creationist argument is that life is too complex to have evolved on its own but I feel like this is due to people perceiving that anything complex must have come from the top down rather than bottom up. I find a good parallel to be the free market. The reason we have products to buy is not because of any top down system (i.e. the government) but because people decided that it was in their own self interests. Take the pencil for example. It's a very mundane object, very simple as well. Yet nobody knows how to make a pencil. Yet we still have pencils because the people involved in its production act in self interest. To get even more complex, we have smartphones. Not only are they more complex but they require minerals from around the world.
As Adam Smith so eloquently put it:
So how does all of this apply to evolution? Well, evolution is really natural selection. Any creature which manages to survive and reproduce will pass on its genes. However, especially with sexual reproduction, the offspring aren't exactly like their parents. For most offspring, these differences are quite small. But for some, they can be quite big. These differences are called genetic mutations. Many of these mutations are harmful and lead to the death of the offspring but some are beneficial. Take bacteria for example. Some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics while others aren't. The former bacteria have better odds of surviving in environments were antibiotics are frequent than the latter ones. A common way of viewing evolution is as a progression. That's how creationists often portray it but I think that this is a mistaken view. The only end goal in mind was surviving to the next generation and this is what we got. The only criteria used to determine whether a gene is harmful or beneficial is whether it further enables survival and bringing forth offspring. In fact, this can actually change based on environmental circumstances. Take for example the peppered moth. Most such moths were white because they were more difficult for birds to see on tree barks, especially in the sunlight. However, when Great Britain went through the industrial revolution, the tree barks became darker due to pollution, making the white moths easier to see and the black ones harder to see. This selection process was so strong that black moths went from just 0.01% of all moths to 98% by the end of the 19th century. Another example has to do with elephants, rhinos, and deer. By default, they are selected in favor of large tusks, horns, and antlers respectively. However, when poachers sought them for their ivory and for trophies, those with smaller such had more reproductive success since they didn’t get poached.
This point also mentions mitochondrial eve and Y chromosomal adam. Creationists use this to prove that Adam and Eve really did exist since we all had two common ancestors but that's not what it means. Mitochondrial eve is the first woman that every female will bump into when going up the matrilineal line. Y chromosomal adam is the first man that every male will bump into by going up the patrilineal line. These two people didn't even have to be around at the same time nor are they necessarily the youngest common ancestors of every human being.
DNA might actually prove the theory of evolution.
Let me explain
Every single creature has DNA. Primates have DNA which is 99% identical to humans. Bananas have DNA which is 50% identical to humans (apparently, the atheist's worst nightmare is actually the creationist's worst nightmare). What this all points towards is the notion that all life has a common ancestor.
