This question is strange because -- as Briney explained repeatedly at his seminar -- when he refers to the "General Theory of Evolution," he means the combination of cosmic evolution, abiogenesis, and biological change over time. (Also strange is the fact that he recognizes the fallacy of grouping these three distinct areas together yet continues to do it anyway.) However, in this question, it appears that he is referring only to biological evolution.
We can presume from the qualifier that he tags onto the end of the question that he acknowledges that microevolution (change beneath the species level) does indeed take place. Since macroevolution (change at or above the species level, or speciation) can sometimes be a result of lots of microevolution, his qualifier makes it like asking, "What is the best evidence for evolution? Oh, by the way, you can't use any evidence that is mere evolution."

The most-cited directly observed evidence for microevolution is probably industrial melanism. As the trees in a certain region of England were being progressively darkened by soot from industrial pollution, a species of moth, Biston betularia, with two different colored variants -- a mostly white, "peppered" moth and a darker polymorph -- became particularly interesting to biologists. It appeared that the ratio of darker moths to lighter colored moths was increasing. Based on research by Bernard Kettlewell, the lighter colored moths were easier to see on the darkended birch tree trunks, and predators eliminated more light moths than peppered moths. Because it was advantageous to possess a body with darker coloration, the relative number of dark colored moths increased.
After legislation was passed that reduced the emissions of factories, the bark of the birch trees began to gradually return to its natural lighter shade. Just as natural selection predicts, the lighter colored moths increased in number while the darker moths suffered increasing predation.

The fossil record provides very good evidence for evolution over long periods of time. Fossilized skeletons show a general progression of animal morphology as the locations of the skeletons proceed up the geologic column. Analysis of bone structure and radioisotope dating provide methods of further refinement of evolutionary data.

Quick, non-technical examples of macroevolution include homologous structures, analogous structures, and vestigial structures.

• Homologous structures are structures present in different species of organisms that derived from a recently common ancestor. This can be determined from the fossil record or by DNA sequencing. A common example is the identical bone structure of forearms in a wide variety of animals, including humans, mice, cats, whales, bats, crocodiles, birds...
• Analogous structures are body parts that are present in different species that are not derived from a common ancestor. Analogous structures usually arise from convergent evolution and are often the result of common selection pressures. Many Australian marsupials strongly resemble American placental mammals because of similar selection.
• Vestigial structures are structures that have no or only a very limited function in an organism. They are "leftover" parts whose functions either became unnecessary or were superceded by another structure. The most common human examples are the appendix and the coccyx, or tailbone.

There is, however, a huge wealth of much more technical evidence for evolution. Briney asks for "evidence showing change beyond simple variation within a population," and there is certainly plenty of that. For example, on a molecular biology level, we can compare protein sequences from different organisms to determine the similarity of their functional DNA. The following sequences are for the protein cytochrome c in six different organisms.

Human:	mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Chimp:	mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rhesus monkey:	gdvekgkkif imkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgysyta anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifvgikkkee radliaylkk atne
Chicken:	mgdiekgkki fvqkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaegfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkks ervdliaylk datsk
Bullfrog:	gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk
Sunflower:	asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

As you can see, the sequences for the human and the chimpanzee are identical. Besides the deletion of the methionine ("m") from the very beginning of the rhesus monkey's sequence, there is only a single difference between it and the sequence of the human and chimp. Even the chicken's sequence shows similarity. However, as the example organisms get more and more unlike primates, their protein sequences get more and more unlike those of the primates. Because proteins are encoded by DNA, and DNA is the genetic material of organisms, this is evidence that the primates had a more recent common ancestor with one another than they did with bullfrogs or sunflowers.

This just scrapes the surface of the vast multitude of scientific data that supports evolution. We recommend visiting www.talkorigins.org for anything from basic evolutionary theory information to scientific papers on specific topics of interest.

It should be pointed out that the evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. In order for it to be replaced, a better scientific theory would have to be proposed. Despite the zealous attempts to discredit the theory over the past 150 years, it has only gained support through the discovery of more and more evidence.

• Moth and homology pictures from The Living World, 2nd ed., George B. Johnson, 2000, McGraw-Hill.

Simply put, this is a position which Briney has been unable to support after repeated inquiries. He -- as well as many other apparently uninformed anti-evolutionists -- seems to think that Ernst Haeckel's fraudelent embryotic drawings from the 1870s are still being used to "influence" schoolchildren today even though science has shown that the drawings are inaccurate*. I did Pastor Briney the favor of bringing every last one of my biology and biochemistry textbooks from college and offering to let him show us where Haeckel's drawings were presented as factual. Of course, he didn't bother, because I had already told him that Haeckel is barely mentioned at all, let alone presented as an expert embryologist, in those books.
When challenged to provide a book in which Haeckel's drawings were presented as factual, Briney was unable to comply.

Briney also points to the Piltdown Man hoax trying to show that evolutionists are dishonest. (You can read about the hoax here.) But contrary to what Briney would have his readers believe, and as evidenced by the previously mentioned page, evolutionists -- not anti-evolutionists -- were the people responsible for exposing the hoax. This is because of the integrity built into the Scientific Method.
If evolutionists were in the business of falsifying data to lead to a conclusion, why would they have exposed this hoax? This is a question that Briney has been unable to answer.

Briney also claims that the example of peppered moths as natural selection in action is inaccurately presented. The claims in general, along with short responses to the claims, can be found here. More thorough rebuttals can be found here and here.

* When I say "inaccurate," I don't mean the drawings were totally fabricated: Haeckel's drawings were based on his observations, but he "fudged" his drawings. I recently saw a textbook that showed a section of Haeckel's drawings altered to fit our current knowledge. However, the book explicitly mentions that while Haeckel's drawings were fudged, that the figure in the book was accurate, and that while the idea of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" isn't true in the sense Haeckel proposed, embryonic similarities do exist and provide hints about phylogeny. [return]

See also below.

First, Briney fails to recognize any difference between secular (non-religious) and atheistic concepts. The former has no direct implications on religion while the latter would promote the belief in no deity. He represents evolution as "atheistic" in order to rouse dissent for the theory among theists. His argument is completely obliterated by the millions of theistic evolutionists, whose views Briney absolutely refuses to consider when presenting his points.

More importantly, as Briney should know, science only deals with what science is capable of testing. A "naturalistic" "bias" doesn't exist because science can't test the supernatural. Science is incapable of making supernatural claims. And once again, as theistic evolutionists believe, the scientific explanation of evolution in no way disallows the possibility of the supernatural.
Upon being questioned on this subject, Briney acknowledged that science does not disallow the possibility of the supernatural. However, this question seems to say otherwise, suggesting that Briney is presenting this question with willful dishonesty for the purpose of pushing his point.

Origin of the Universe

See Big Bang theory, including expanding universe, red shift, and especially -- my personal favorite -- cosmic microwave background radiation.

There are several objections to Briney's implied point. I'll brush upon a couple of them.

The first objection, which has hounded Briney since running into Doug Krueger, has to do with Briney's (mis)understanding of the first law of thermodynamics. This is explained more thoroughly in our rebuttal of his "Evidence of the existence of God" arguments (coming soon!), but some applies here. The first law of thermodynamics is a classical law that applies only to closed systems in equilibrium. Briney has not only failed to show that the universe is a closed system but also has not shown that the universe at singularity was at or near equilibrium.

I'm no cosmologist, but my interpretation of the Big Bang theory is NOT that something came from nothing. Time exists only in the universe (i.e. space-time continuum), so time by definition began existing when the rest of the universe did -- there was no "before." In other words: at no time did nothing exist; therefore, this view reconciles the accusation that "something came from nothing."

A more technical (and quite possibly more correct) approach considers the fact that classical physics (and even General Relativity) breaks down at very small scales. Science turns to quantum mechanics to describe nanoscale events, which the singularity would certainly be. However, we currently have only an incomplete understanding of QM (see EPR Paradox for a standard example), and we simply cannot at this time explain what might have been happening, especially before Planck time (10^-43 seconds after singularity).

This reduces Briney's argument to a simple "God of the gaps" claim, which holds no water whatsoever.

Again, the second law of thermodynamics also applies only under certain conditions, and Briney has shown neither that the universe currently conforms to this conditions nor that the universe conformed to these conditions at the "beginning." Briney apparently doesn't realize, however, that the actual question in the above passage has nothing to do with the preceding statement concerning the second law of thermodynamics. The question itself is actually a simple restatement of an alleged "problem" stemming from the first law of thermodynamics (which deals with conservation of energy) and is answered in our response to Briney's second question on the origin of the universe.

Briney uses these statements in his "Evidence of the existence of God" arguments in a slightly different way. We will soon have available a page on which we critically examine and dismantle Briney's arguments for the existence of God.

Again, the second law of thermodynamics is a classical law that -- regardless of any anti-evolutionist's attempt at rewording -- applies only to closed macroscopic systems near thermal equilibrium. Briney has still not shown that the universe is such a system. To support his point, Briney would need to show the mathematical calculations proving that entropy has decreased. Entropy is a physically defined property and is only generalized as "disorder"; simply claiming that the universe is more "ordered" is not proof that entropy has decreased.
See also this page for a mathematical exposé of Briney's thermodynamic ignorance.

Origin of Life

It should first be noted that none of my college textbooks presents a "law of biogenesis." What Briney may be referring to is the observation that cells only come from existing cells, which is part of cell theory. However, this theory was originally formulated in response to Pasteur's disproving the hypothesis of spontaneous generation (that living organisms spring from decaying organic matter), and was not intended to apply to actual abiogenesis. If science had actually "established" that life cannot in any way come from non-life, why would scientists be looking for evidence of such?

But to answer the specific question(s): Work by Miller and Urey as well as Oro and others have shown that producing biologically important molecules from simpler, pre-biotic molecules is perfectly possible. Just because nobody has invented life in a test tube means that it cannot occur either in a test tube or in a primordial soup.
Moreover, there is very good evidence (mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA, RNA World hypothesis) that early "life" was probably incredibly different from our modern definition of "life." It is therefore unreasonable to expect to produce a modern cell from pre-biotic molecules.

An important point: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
See also the following question and response.

The reader will note that nowhere on his site does Briney actually show the calculations.

However, Freethinker sleuthing has revealed that the "probabilities" Briney presents are ridiculous for the following reasons:

First, the alleged calculations use a model of completely random assembly of modern polypeptides and genetic material. This is known to be inaccurate, as evolution has been demonstrated a gradualistic process that builds, modifies, and largely improves the reaction rates and stabilities of enzymatic and structural polypeptides. Second, the calculations fail to take into account the undisputed evidence of early biological simplicity, namely smaller forms of homeostatic reproducing entities and a reliance upon RNA without DNA or polypeptides.

Upon being questioned about the RNA World hypothesis and mitochondrial DNA, Briney acknowledged his familiarity with them but refused to comment further. By presenting these probabilities even though he knows of their invalidity, Briney has made the conscious choice to deceive the public with these bogus values.

A component of these alleged calculations must involve, as Briney repeatedly calls it, "natural properties of molecules." He may not be a chemist, but even as a biologist he knows perfectly well that "natural properties of molecules" depend greatly upon the surroundings. However, we have absolutely no way of knowing what the conditions of the pre-biotic molecules may have been, let alone their surroundings. So even ignoring the above objections, there is simply no mathematical way to take the "natural properties of molecules" into account when performing these calculations.

Once again, Briney commits a fallacy by posing a false dichotomy. More importantly, he does so knowingly! As explained above, Briney is familiar with the RNA World hypothesis, which states that most if not all of early biological "machinery" was composed largely of RNA instead of DNA or peptides. Recent research has shown that some RNA molecules are capable of catalyzing their own replication, cleaving themselves or other RNA molecules, and performing other cellular functions. For example, even the modern cellular process of making proteins relies on the ribosome, an enzymatic macromolecule composed of strands of RNA, and tRNA, shorter strands of RNA that carry each peptide to the ribosome, interact with the ribosome, and leave the ribosome after the peptide has been polymerized.
This heavy reliance upon RNA is another piece of evidence that suggests that neither of Briney's "options" are reasonable; I'd posit that "what came first" was the code that perpetuated the code. The enzymatic proteins and more stable code came later.

This is obviously a takeoff of the old "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" riddle, which -- equally obviously -- is equally misleading: The dinosaur egg came well before the chicken.

Origin of Species

Talk.Origins has an excellent, thorough presentation for macroevolution called, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent. Also take a look at their Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

Briney is making a false analogy quite simply because cars don't produce offspring via genetic material. Still, to suggest that homology is "inferred" is disingenuous. If Briney had a firm grasp of evolutionary concepts, he would know that -- by strict definition -- "homology" represents phylogeny. True homology, that is, is not determined solely by appearance. Structures that are similar in appearance but are not phylogenetically related are not referred to as homologues. The basis for determining, not inferring, whether two structures are homologous might involve fossil record examination, DNA sequencing, or both.

It must be pointed out that mutation is not the sole mechanism of evolution. Natural selection is by far the most effective mechanism. Gene flow and random genetic drift also play a role. This question in a sense sets up a straw man; evolutionary theory doesn't say that mutations alone create "new structures." Furthermore, even if the question is reworded accordingly, it needs to clarify what is considered a "new structure" and what is just a "modified feature."

However, we can attempt to answer the question by using the example of resistance genes in bacteria. It is a well-known phenomenon that non-resistant bacteria can develop new genes that provide resistance to antibiotics. These new genes are "structures" that did not exist prior to the introduction of the antibiotics and were modified based on mutation and natural selection.

See also the following answer.

First is the objection to the possible false dichotomy of "an increase [in] new information" and "modifying existing genetic information." Furthermore, the definition of "information" in biological systems has been hotly debated; Briney would need to both give and justify a definition of "information" in order for this question to be reasonable. Regardless, there are several examples which surely negate the implications of Briney's question.

A well-known example is antibiotic resistance. This is also a hotly debated topic because of the obvious implications for those like Briney who deny that an increase in information can arise from mutation and natural selection. Read some here, and read Lee Spetner's rebuttal with Max's response here for more specific information about both antibiotic resistance and the controversy over the definition of biological information.

A newer, more elegant example is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon didn't exist until the 1930s, so upon finding bacteria in nylon plant wastewater, scientists chose to investigate the origin of the gene that codes for the nylon hydrolyzing enzyme. They were able not only to describe what happened but also duplicate the event in the lab. The enzyme is the completely novel result of a frameshift mutation. Read more here.

Despite these obvious counterexamples, we can refute the main point of this article using only first principles of genetics. If "genetic information" is defined such that there can be a decrease in information -- as so many creationists claim happens often -- then the "reverse" mutation would necessarily result in the opposite: an increase in information. If Briney, in an effort to avoid this, denies that there are decreases, then his definition of "genetic information" must be so vacuous that detrimental mutations aren't "losses" and -- correspondingly -- beneficial mutations aren't "increases," which eliminates the requirement for evolution to produce "increases" in order to be effective.

One can only wonder why someone claiming to be so well-educated in biology is ignorant of not only these simple examples that clearly contradict his claim but also the very basics of genetics that outright disprove his claim.

What part of evolutionary theory requires unlimited mutation and natural selection? What evidence suggests that they do have limits? This seems to be a highly nonsensical question with no hint as to its purpose on this list other than to mislead and confuse.

While he doesn't make the actual claim in this set of questions, Briney's insinuation of limited mutation graduates to a positive assertion during public presentations. Given his alleged familiarity with genetics, he should be able to formulate an argument for this point; however, to my knowledge, he has not attempted to do so.

What is considered a "partially developed" or "nonfunctional" feature? A definition of each of those terms must be provided by the question in order for it to be answerable. There are plenty of examples of transitional forms; the biggest problem seems to be in the paradigm of anti-evolutionists who expect to see something like a completely useless appendage transitionally developing toward an ultimate "goal" structure when the theory predicts nothing of the sort.

It would behoove Briney to take a look at Tiktaalik, a recently discovered intermediate fossil that contains many transitional features.

Why is the sky blue? No vastly different new body plans developing since the Cambrian explosion means nothing and is not at all a threat to or hole in evolutionary theory. It is simply what happened. Perhaps a good question for Briney would be, "Why did six phyla of animals already exist before the Cambrian explosion?"

As I mentioned above, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" (Briney can't even keep from confusing the two; the "law of biogenesis" was mentioned above) per se is not generally being used as evidence. It is widely known in the evolutionary biology community that Haeckel admitted to altering his drawings to support his theory. To date, I have never seen his original drawings presented as fact, and Briney has been unable to produce an example of it being presented as fact.

However, there do exist common similarities in embryos of different species. (See also evo-devo.) Although biologists don't recognize any "biogenetic law," embryonic resemblence is well-documented and undisputed.

An absurd assertion with three responses:

Short answer: because four billion years is an incomprehensibly long time.

Less short answer: The vast majority of that research was/is for the intent of producing more fruitflies. Therefore, generally speaking, the research eliminates natural selection, which is the driving force behind evolution. The fact that fruitflies are capable of reproducing effectively is not in the least bit contradictory to the fundamentals of biological evolution.

Unsurprising answer: Briney is either woefully ignorant of the research or willfully misleading; we'll let the readers decide which. Section 5.3 of this page explains several speciation events for Drosophila melanogaster, the species of choice for experimentation. While the events produced other species of fruit flies, the assertion that the species is a "dead end" species is demonstrably absurd. Briney's insistence at his seminar that this assertion is "accepted" by biologists is blatantly dishonest and intellectually reprehensible.

Furthermore, "dead end" species (those which die out without any evolutionary descendants) have existed and in no way challenge the theory of evolution. For Briney to imply that the inability of scientists to change a population of fruitflies into some radically different organism means that evolutionary theory must be incorrect once again only speaks to either his gross ignorance of the theory or his intent to deceive the public.

Intelligent Design

What this has to do with "Intelligent Design" seems a mystery. Briney has once again appealed to cosmic evolution with respect to the formation of the solar system.

As Doug Krueger has pointed out, virtually all of Briney's "evidences" for God's existence is a "God of the gaps" claim, which is simply a fallacious argument from ignorance.

Venus just barely rotates backward, as its rotational period is about as long as its orbital period. This might be because of an impact on the planet long ago, or perhaps an extrasolar meteoroid -- and therefore its mass and trajectory -- being incorporated into the proto-planet. Because we cannot look back in time, we are forced to speculate beyond the scope of our evidence. However, in no way does the question rebut the entire model of the solar system's development. The same reasoning applies to Uranus' tilted axis.

I have opted not to verify Briney's claim that eleven of this solar system's moons rotate backward. The following response will explain why it is virtually irrelevant.

Also, it should be noted that -- if eleven natural satellites do indeed rotate backward -- they do not constitute one-third of the system's moons. Jupiter alone has at least 63 moons, so eleven would not even constitute one-third of that single planet's moons. In reality, our solar system has over 140 moons, which would mean that fewer than 8%, not 30%, rotate backward.

The origins of natural satellites vary from moon to moon. It is very possible that many moons were simply meteroids in space that became captured by the gravity of the planets they now orbit. It isn't at all unlikely that any moons captured in this fashion would have rotation along an axis that was not parallel to most of the other axes in our solar system. Therefore, Briney's (mind-bogglingly nonsensical) suggestion that these "anomalies" weaken existing theories is unfounded.

Scientists do not have a thorough understanding of the formation of planetary systems. There is a very limited amount of data from which to formulate theories. (Update: Scientists witnessing birth of mini solar system, 30Nov2005.) The general concensus among today's astronomers is a version of the nebular hypothesis first proposed by Immanuel Kant. According to this hypothesis, most heavier elements were pulled by gravity toward the middle of the protoplanetary disk. Because the four hot, innermost protoplanets that formed were relatively small, their low gravitational pulls allowed the light gases such as hydrogen and helium to be blown farther from the protosun. The larger, cooler protoplanets which were farther from the sun were therefore able to collect and keep these gases.

It's always easy to "prove" a point when you get to make up information. This "fact" is most definitely untrue, but Briney is presenting it as a fact. (According to Briney's own words, this proves that he is "either ignorant or a liar.") It would appear that he got this number from Dr. Walter Brown, who retracted the argument after realizing his value was incorrect.

Here in the real (barely-spinning-less-and-less-quickly) world, calculations based on ancient observations compared to today's observations show that the earth is slowing in its rotation at an average rate of 1.5 to 2 milliseconds per century. As explained here, we have good evidence from Devonian corals that tidal braking does not pose a problem for an ancient earth.

Credit Briney with removing this question from his website after Darrel told him that his information was simply incorrect.
However, I pointed out that 11 moons do not constitute one-third of the moons of our solar system, yet Briney has left that question unchanged.