I was recently in a conversation with a dear friend of mine who doubts the theory of evolution. I have posted his questions/assertions below in blue and responded to them.

One of the major problems with evolution is lack of evidence.  By that I mean there are no fossil records of apes evolving into man or dinosaurs evolving into birds. So that begs the question, where is there a missing link for absolutely every supposed “evolved” species?  If every species today evolved from other species, where are the fossils to prove it?

Contrary to your assertion, there is an enormous amount of evidence in support of evolution. Fossils are extremely rare, what I mean is, it is highly unlikely that a being would be fossilized, as it takes a rare and specific set of circumstances. Because of this, there are gaps in the fossil record. There are also many examples in the fossil record and in modern animals of evolutionary “stages.”

As an example you could look at the modern cow as compared to it’s “natural” ancestor. The difference is so obvious that it really looks like an entirely different species. The changes occurred as breeders selectively mated the bovine to meet their needs. The same phenomenon occurs in nature through “natural selection”. There are many, many other examples of this from birds to sea turtles. For more on this I recommend reading “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. Most libraries have it.

Correct me if Im wrong, but isnt one of the main positions of evolution that after a species evolves into a new species then the old one dies out.  If that is true then why are there apes still on the planet if man evolved from apes?

Incorrect, the old species doesn’t “have” to die out. Sometimes they do, however, as the mutuations sometimes give an advantage to one species in hunting, evading predators, or reproduction.

Where is the fossil evidence showing one organism merging into the next? (not simple mutations)

It is a common misconception that evolution occurs in large jumps. Evolution occurs by simple mutations (micro-evolution) occuring over millions or hundreds of millions of years. In other words, Macro-Evolution IS simply Micro-Evolution over a enormous expanse of time.

Where is the evidence where mutation creates unique and new structures rather than modified ones?

There isn’t evidence of that, that is not how evolution (typically) occurs.

What is the best evidence that shows the main THEORY of evolution to be fact?

I see you capitalized “theory”. There are 2 common definitions of that word, a scientific one, and the common one. When scientists speak of theory, they referring to an idea that has been tested and can be applied principally to different scenarios with a predictable outcome. If a theory fails a test, i.e. doesn’t provide the expected outcome, it is discarded as a theory. After 150 years, evolution remains a theory and is applied to nearly every aspect of biology, including medicine (such as vaccines.) It is in fact that we can predict mutations (evolution) in viruses that we are able to preemptively create vaccines (before the mutations occur.)

By which means did the code of life, and the enzymes to create that code originate?

Scientists don’t know, although there are several hypothesis’ as to how this occured. Dawkins supplied 2 common hypothesis in the 2nd chapter of his book “The Selfish Gene”. Regardless of the origin of life, it is well established in the scientific community that evolution is a fact.

Which came first, the code to make enzymes or the enzymes to make the code (chicken or egg question)?

The enzymes to make the code came first.

What made up the original matter that caused the big bang?

That is a good question. Who knows, it may have always been. You’re talking about events that happened Billions of years ago.

You see just like religion there are many many unanswered questions concerning evolution.

True, but there are answers to many of your questions regarding evolution, answers that are based on physical evidence, are available to you if you would study the subject. When scientists are looking for an answer they admit that they don’t know and search for empirical evidence, then form hypothesis and test that and so on (over the course of years) until they develop a theory. The theory is subject to intense scrutiny by peers who would be rewarded if they could overturn an accepted theory.

Religion on the other hand doesn’t search for empirical evidence at all, rather, it bases it’s understanding of the world on books written by ancient and scientifically ignorant men. If there is something it doesn’t understand, it says, “God did it”, and creates a story mythical story to explain.

“Questions” about religion can (such as which one if any is true) can never be answered as it deals primarily with “metaphysical truth”, which is by nature invisible and non-material, in other words, “non-existent”.

As an example, I could claim that God told me her name is Pokahontas and she lives in a distant galaxy. There is no way that you could prove I am wrong. Similarly, there is no way to prove that the god of Isalm, Christianity, Mormonism are real, although there surmounting evidence that religions were created by man as is demonstrated even internally in the religious texts.

Don’t think because some nerdy looking guy in glasses with a pocket protector in his shirt and sounds really smart, that he has all the answers.

Your talking about Richard Dawkins, the man is one of the leading Biologists in the world. He has spent his entire life studying the topic so naturally he has lots of answers and yes, he is really smart. I wouldn’t say that he has “all the answers”.