For all Atheists. Please explain to me how you came to believe that mankind evolved instead of being created.

Question

I am not being smart here, just trying to understand something that is very alien to me. Please give me honest answers without being sassy or smart. I am trying to understand.

Answer 1

Let's examine the possibilities:

1. Life formed from inorganic matter, certain traits were more beneficial than others and the organisms that had those traits were more likely to survive and pass them on to their descendants. After millions and millions of years we are here.

2. An all powerful deity created everything.

Let's examine the evidence:

1. The Miller-Urey experiments have proven that organic compounds can be created from inorganic source material under the right conditions. These conditions are likely similar to the environment of Earth around the time that life is likely to have begun. This is by no means a "proof" of any kind, but it is food for thought. Microevolution can be seen by looking at dog breeds and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This is also not a "proof," but more food for thought.

2. There are several books and some oral traditions that claim that a deity (or deities) created everything. However, they do not agree about much else.

Where are these ideas headed?:

1. Science has never presumed to have all the answers. It is a journey, not a destination. Thus far it has provided us with a tremendous amount of information about the way the world and universe work. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so.

2. Faith steadfastly holds to ideas even long after they are proven to be false. Case in point: Galileo was only pardoned by the Church in 1992, though we now know that his "theories" were indeed facts.

When I look at things like this (this is a very short answer) I realize that faith is simply an attempted explanation for certain things that seemed, at one time, unexplainable. Frankly, now we know better.

Answer 2

It's really not that difficult to accept evolution as the explanation that best fits the facts. My father bred dairy cattle and I could see changes in the animals over just a few generations, and that's just the result of one man selecting for a few desirable traits in a single breed. Nature has much more to work with and many many manymanymany generations in which countless tiny mutations and adaptations can add up to speciation.

Answer 3

I never believed in a god or a supreme being. It seems amazingly illogical to me. I took a few biology classes, researched somethings about evolution. Microevolution is a fact and there are no barriers to prevent macroevolution.

Answer 4

two different issues.

Not created because the story of creation does not match the physical world, and the rest of the Bible is full of contradictions and goofy mythology.

Mankind evolved because that idea explains the fossils we have found, the DNA relationships we have with other primates, and the obvious physical similarity we have with them.

Answer 5

Read Darwins "theory of evolution" and i am sure you will get answers. Read the Holy Books... compare it...you may know why atheists are right.


The following website list 29+evidences for Macroevolution

Answer 6

Now I ain't an atheist. I believe by definition (check dictionary.com) it's someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. I believe in God, but I also believe we weren't created straight by him but evolved from another being that evolved to adapt to this world of ours.

Answer 7

why would a god createe moons.,suns, planets without life.the flea.plants we can't eat.decease and genetic decease.and not take a active part in his or her creation.and why creat something only for it to slowly destroy your creation and do nothing about it.why the dinosaurs

Answer 8

evidence

Answer 9

athieses are gay

Answer 10

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Outline
Introduction

Universal Common Descent Defined
Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
What Counts as Scientific Evidence
Other Explanations for the Biology
How to Cite This Document
Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method

Phylogenetics introduction

Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
Maximum parsimony
Maximum likelihood
Distance matrix methods
Statistical support for phylogenies
Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree

Unity of life
Nested hierarchies
Convergence of independent phylogenies
Statistics of incongruent phylogenies
Transitional forms
Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows
Chronology of common ancestors
Part 2. Past history

Anatomical vestiges
Atavisms
Whales with hindlimbs
Humans tails
Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology
Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
Snake embryos with legs
Embryonic human tail
Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
Present biogeography
Past biogeography
Marsupials
Horses
Apes and humans

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism

Anatomical parahomology
Molecular parahomology
Anatomical convergence
Molecular convergence
Anatomical suboptimal function
Molecular suboptimal function
Part 4. Molecular evidence

Protein functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant pseudogenes
Endogenous retroviruses
Part 5. Change

Genetic
Morphological
Functional
The strange past
Stages of speciation
Speciation events
Morphological rates
Genetic rates
Closing remarks


Other Links:
A Critique of Douglas Theobald's "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"
Lawyer, Churches of Christ minister, and young-earth creationist Ashby Camp argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.
Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
The author of this essay has written a response to Camp.
Search this FAQ

What is Universal Common Descent?
niversal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool. Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.

Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".

In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation.

It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.

Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.

How to Cite This Document
Many people have asked how to cite this work in formal research papers and academic articles. This work is an online publication, published by the Talk.Origins archive. There are standard academic procedures for citing online publications. For example, if you last accessed this page on January 12, 2004, and used version 2.83, here is a reference in formal MLA style:

Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004

For more information about citing online sources, including MLA, APA, Chicago, and CBE styles, see the formal style guidelines given in the book Online!: a reference guide to using internet sources.

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).