Convince me of evolution?

Question

I recently deconverted from fundamental evangelicalism. I was indoctrinated from an early age to believe in a young earth. I now believe evolution is the most probable explanation for our existence, but whenever I look for evidence, all I read is scientists saying "Evolution has been shown to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt," or "the fossil record proves evolution." How is this any different than the creationists who say "evolution has been proven false!" or "the fossil record proves the flood" ?

Can someone please show me the ~specific~ evidence that shows thinking people that evolution is for real?

Well, I figured I would have to add some more details but I was hoping people would just answer my question without needing to know about my personal life. I just wanted some good refrences, which some good people have provided me with, while others have instead made judgments. So let me be clear: I am completely an atheist now. I love to study science, but only physics and astronomy, I know nothing of biology. I want to know more so I can defend my belief in evolution against my fundie family. Thank you to those who have helped. I have reserved a copy of Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene,” which I hear is supposed to make things really clear, and I’m going to check out all the links that have been recommended. I welcome more answers, but maybe we can skip the judging, now?

Answer 1

Before I start, please let me just say that now that you are truly willing to view the evidence for evolution with an open mind, it doesn't mean that you can no longer believe in the bible. The problem with biblical literalists is that they claim the bible to be inerrent in areas for which it was not intended. The bible is not a science book, and should not be considered infallible in areas of geology, meteorology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, or any other scientific field. It wa smeant to explain to us who God is, how much He loves us, and what He wants from us. Nothing more.

I hope you haven't lost your faith in Jesus. You can trust both science and the bible. You only need to understand where the appropriate times and places are to apply each.

That said...

Here is a basic overview of the evidence for evolution. There is NO evidence for any other theory. After the list of evidence for evolution, you will find a series of predictions made for Young Earth Creationism and biblical inerrency (Remember that being errent doesn't mean untrue) and how the observations contradict
the predictions.

The progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.
Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA
First multicellular animals 670 MYA
Shell-bearing animals 540 MYA
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA
Amphibians 350 MYA
Reptiles 310 MYA
Mammals 200 MYA
Nonhuman primates 60 MYA
Earliest apes 25 MYA
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA
One can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but when properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.

Structural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent.

The distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Before the island split off from the mainland, a common ancestor to both the Galapogos Iguana and the mainland Green Iguana populated that area. Later, the island split away from the continent, and the animals that remained on it were still comfortable. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.

Similarities During Development
Embryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, for instance, are sedentary crustaceans with little apparent similarity to such other
crustaceans as lobsters, shrimps, or copepods. Yet barnacles pass through a free-swimming larval stage in which they look like other crustacean larvae. The similarity of larval stages supports the conclusion that all crustaceans have homologous parts and a common ancestry.
Similarly, a wide variety of organisms from fruit flies to worms to mice to humans have very similar sequences of genes that are active early in development. These genes influence body segmentation or orientation in all these diverse groups. The presence of such similar genes doing similar things across such a wide range of organisms is best explained by their having been present in a very early common ancestor of all of these groups.
The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

Transitional fossils. Despite creationist claims that there are no transitional fossils, they do indeed exist, and there are many of them, across a wide range of species. Humans, horses, whales, and birds, just to name a few. There are transitional fossils showing the evolution of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, and reptile to mammal. There are even transitional species that are still alive today. The lungfish, for example.

Genetic variation.
Evolution would require genetic variation to happen, and a considerable amount of genetic diversity exists even among members of the same species, identical twins notwithstanding.

Microevolution.
Creationists once claimed that after God created everything, animals stopped changing. This has been so thoroughly debunked that even the most hardcore creationists accept that microevolutionary changes occur. The problem for creationists is that microevolution happens within a time fram that is even less then the blink of an eye in a gelogical scale. It is not unreasonable to infer that over hundreds of millions of years, conditions could lead to a population of animals evolving into something very different from the parent generation. Creationists are always asking evolutionists to show them an example of this, but they demand an example within a time scale that simply isn't reasonable. Not that creationists have ever been reasonable about debating these things. Microevolution is the same process as macroevolution, but over a much shorter time scale.

DNA analysis:
DNA analysis shows that genetic similarities between living things of all species of plant an animal show a close correlation with their closeness within the phylogenic tree. Shared DNA is very strong evidence of familial relationship. Of course, creationists dismiss this evidence as nothing more than God having used a similar design, and similar creatures will therefore have similar DNA. This is a weak, and sad effort to dismiss DNA evidence for evolution. Further, it doesn't explain why we share "junk DNA" with other animals. If a woman came to you with a baby that was a dead ringer for a guy when he was the same age, and a DNA test proved that he was the father, wouldn't it be a little laughable to you if that guy said that the baby had similar DNA because they looked alike? Likewise, if the DNA test showed that he wasn't the father of a baby that looked nothing at all like him, then said that it was his kid, but the DNA was different because the baby didn't look like him?

Disingenious? Of course. In fact, it is downright dishonest. DNA correlates with the degree of the relationship.
Period.

Just one of any of these evidences I've cited could not be considered evidence, much less proof. But the totality of it all, when brought together, requires an explanation, and common descent explains it best, which is why 99% of the 400,000 scientists in all related fields accept evoltuion as the best theory.

But if that isn't enough, literal creationism makes its own predictions...
1) No fossil record would exist prior to the week of creation, which would be approximately 6,000 to 40,000 years ago, depending on which biblical chronographist you choose to side with. Despite creationist claims to the contrary, isotopic dating methods ARE reliable, when properly done, and ALL evidence points to a fossil record which reaches back much further than even the largest estimate of YEC's.
2) According to the literal interpretation of Genesis, all animals and plants were created within a literal six earth-day period. There should be no fossils found during this creation week at all.
3) At this point, death had not yet entered the world (supposedly). All the world's animals and plants are now in place, and live forever (Because Adam and Eve had not yet sinned). If that is the case then we should only expect trace fossils like burrows, coprolites, shed trilobite or crab exoskeletons, animal tracks such as cattle, deer, human, dinosaurs etc. All baramins (= Biblical "kinds") should be present in this period. We should find no indications of death. We could also expect to find traces of human habitation. However this period is also very short, Genesis 5:3 gives an upper limit of 130 years. No major catastrophes are recorded in the Bible so fossils from this period are unlikely. No extinctions are possible without death, except perhaps in plant species. This would mean that no animal index fossils would be possible, although there may be plant index fossils. The big problem with this creationist prediction is that index fossils are found, even before the Cambrian period and the extinction event that preceded it.
4) If (physical) death was present before the Fall, then the expected fossils would also include dead bodies and be indistinguishable from the Post-Fall period. Extinctions would be possible for all species as would animal index fossils.
5) After the "fall," all agree that death is now possible. In addition to the trace fossils expected in the Pre-Fall period we would expect to find fossils of all living things present at the time: humans, sheep [Gen 4:2], cattle [Gen 2:20], birds [Gen 2:20], fish [Gen 1:28], fruit trees [Gen 1:29], seed bearing plants [Gen 1:29], Nephilim [Gen 6:4] etc. We should also find signs of more extensive human habitation such as cities [Gen 4:17].
Extinctions would be possible for all species and higher classifications, whether baramin or genus etc. We could also see speciation, but only within the baramins. This would allow the possibility of index fossils for this part of the YEC geological column. No new baramins should appear.
At the end of the period we might possibly find animal tracks outside their normal geographical ranges as the animals moved towards the Ark. Armadillo tracks in Mesopotamia for example.
6) The fossil record within this strata would be expected to contain all animals, past and present, represented, all at the same time, within the same strata. Instead, what we do see are certain species represented in certain strata, but not in others above or below it, and the fossils in successive strata show a definite progression. For example, there were multicellular organisms long before there were flowering land plants, fish before amphibians, amphibians before reptiles, reptiles before mammals and birds. We also see a gradual diversification within these classes as the fossil record progresses from further in the past to closer to the present. This is a big problem for creationism, since all of these classes should be represented in the same strata.
7) In the initial part of the Flood we would expect large numbers of fossils and a large number of species to go extinct. However no baramin of land animals or birds would go extinct [Gen 7:3]. Extinction is possible for fish or plant baramins. Each land animal baramin would be reduced to a single species. Bird baramins may have more than one species as there were evidently both ravens and doves on the ark; I am not sure if these two are in the same baramin or in different baramins.
The stratigraphic ordering of fossils would also be affected by the Flood. We would expect birds, pterosaurs and bats to be able to fly above the Flood and to survive for longer than land animals. The land animals would be hydrologically sorted with sauropods on the bottom, elephants above them, then medium sized dinosaurs and mammals mixed up followed by smaller and smaller mammals. Animals like seals, Ambulocetus and otters that could swim well would be expected to appear out of strict hydrological order as they would be likely to survive longer in the floodwaters due to their better swimming ability. For this reason we would expect whale fossils to be placed generally high within the Flood layers despite their size. By the end of the Flood period we would expect few fossils since anything left alive by then would either be going to survive the Flood, such as plants or fish, or be on the Ark.
Index fossils should be able to be used to tell the time within the Flood year on a hydrological basis. If a Flood-period rock layer has fossil elephants then it is probably earlier than a Flood period rock layer containing fossil Archaeopteryx. But we do not see this.
8) In the immediate Post-Flood period we would expect a very small number of fossils. Where a species survived outside the Ark, such as plants or fish, we would expect a reduced population spread all over the world. Thus a sparse fossil record with a reasonably wide geographical distribution. For species on the Ark we would expect them to effectively disappear from the fossil record for some time, as there would be only two individuals of one species to represent each baramin. This would probably include a great reduction in trace fossils, such as tracks and coprolites. However if any such trace fossils were found they could well be in unusual locations, for instance Kangaroo tracks found on the Asian mainland between Ararat and Australia. For extinct baramins we could possibly find one or two dead individuals, T. rex for example. Once the animals are off the Ark it is possible for a whole baramin to go extinct again. No new baramins should appear. Again, this is not what we see.
Once the animals had travelled from Ararat to their normal geographical areas we would expect to see a single species within each baramin reappear after a gap in the fossil record. We should then see that single species speciating at a rate fast enough to generate all the known Post-Flood species within that baramin.
Further, one would predict that it would take a great deal of time for regional species, like Australian kangaroos and koalas, to make their way to a suitable environment. The bible doesn't offer a miraculous transplantation, so we can safely assume that these animals got there on their own, reproducing, dying, and leaving both trace and index fossils of the kangaroo, for example, starting at Mt Ararat and gradually branching out. This would take some time, so these fossils would be expected to be found near the landing location of the ark close to the end of the flood, but not in the same strata great distances from this location. After a period of time, we should see their fossils in later strata further from Mt Ararat, but none further on, and so forth until the kangaroos completed their journey. What we actually see in the fossil record is completely different. We also see multiple extinction events were entire classes of animals get wiped out with no survivors. Other classes that do survive, then diversify and propogate new, similar yet different species. Multiple creation events by God might serve as an Ad Hoc Hypothesis to explain this, but that is unsupported by scripture.
9) The bulk of all fossils would be found in the flood strata. Nevermind that there is no geological evidence for a global, year-long flood, but what we see is fossils spread out over great periods of geological time.

For more details and predictions, visit http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun02.html.

Certainly, you will soon be bombarded with claims of this or that, from Young Earth Creationists about how evolution can't be true. These two sites are excellent sources for refuting these claims. It is doubtful that you will hear any YEC arguments that aren't covered by one or both of these links.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

The below list of sources should keep you busy for a while, and have a lot of very useful information.

Answer 2

Well I'd just like to say congratulations, if that is appropriate, I'm sure it mustn't have been / be easy.

Evolution is really a huge topic, supported by vast evidence from all over science, which is what makes it so impossible to give more than a tiny percentage of the evidence in a sound-bite. Talk Origins is an ok site, specifically designed to counter the misinformation spread by some fundamentalists. So it might be good for a detox. But beyond that, the best thing really is to dive in to the books your self.

The difference between scientists and creationists is that scientific debate and analysis takes place in the scientific literature. Everything there is supported and linked to the evidence, ALL the evidence. It's very hard for someone to get away with ignoring some evidence, or flawed logic, or worst of all, misrepresentation. Other scientists will jump on the mistake and it will be exposed to all.

There are no such checks on creationists, or indeed, anything anyone says on the internet or in lay person books.

So your sources on this shoud be as close to the scientific literature (peer-reviewed scientific journals) as possible. Unfortunately, they can be very hard to read without a strong background in the subjects. So the next closest step would be university text books, or books written by respected scientists with a reputation to uphold. In fairness, that would just about maybe include Behe, but, with your scientific mind, you would check everything he writes in his book against what others say.

But the good answers you've got are a start and there's some more to the same question below.

Answer 3

The problem is with your choice of reading material. You're obviously into the superficial popularized science that's suitable only for entertaining the ignorant masses. Because your parent's poisoned your young mind, you've got a long, long way to go before you can truly understand. You're still thinking like a creationist because you still imagine the complexities of life can be "proven" in a few paragraphs. Science is not a political debate and Truth is not a matter of opinion. I don't mean to insult you but the fact is you need to get yourself a real education or science will never be clear to you. There's a world of difference between "believing" something and "knowing" something. It's not so much about "what" you think, as it is about "how" you think. Nobody can ever "prove" evolution to you. You have to get educated and convince yourself.

Let me try a different tack: I figured out that God is imaginary around the same time I discovered my parents had lied to me about Santa Claus. I was about ten years old. I've been an atheist ever since. Since then I've graduated from High School, gone to college and gotten my BS and MS degrees, and then the real work began! I'm now 60 years old and still study new and challenging material almost every day. I don't watch much TV, I like to read difficult physics books instead. I am a scientist by philosophy and a retired electronics engineer by profession. I'm sure you now appreciate that you and I are as different as it's possible for two grown men to be.

Here's my point. I challenge you to prove the literal existence of God. You should be able to easily do that, right? You are, a born-again believer, aren't you? Oh, by the way, you can't use the Bible or any other sacred scripture as part of your proof because I've skimmed through a few chapters a time or two and I believe both testaments are a pile of completely meaningless drivel. You've got five-hundred words. Go ahead, convert me if you can.

I'm hoping you're open-minded enough to appreciate that my challange isn't real. I'm just holding up a mirror, so you can appreciate the impossibility of what you have asked of me. The truth is, each of us must figure out these things for ourselves and that's propably just as it should be. In the spirit of our common humanity, I'm just trying to get you to see that we Scientists are mightily sick of you Christians implying that our knowledge is somehow inferior to your beliefs. The knife cuts both ways, Brother.

Peace and Love..............

Answer 4

First, there is a great difference between evoluion and creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory, and scientific theories are supported by evidence, which are facts. Creationism on the otherhand is supported by faith. Now, I've read some of the answers that people have given you, and I strongly suggest that you read some published work on the subject of evolution, instead of listening to peers. While peers can be full of knowledge, it's important for you to understand how a scientific theory works, and what those facts are exactly. I hope this helps you.

Answer 5

For me it's easy. Everything changes, that's all. So through time the fittest survive. You can see evolution. If you plant only the best seeds generation after generation of a fruit you end up with a better fruit. Creation ??? Well you need faith and that's all you got to go on. Personally I don't believe that the evolution theory is perfect, we don't necessarily need to come from monkeys for evolution to exist. There are some answer we will never know.

Answer 6

If you go to the biology section of your local book store or library you can find literally hundreds of books on evoution. A book that has been well researched and written when the information was fresh on the writer's mind will help you more then us on the internet, even people who have studied eveolution may not remember all the details you need or may not explain it in a way you would understand.
If you don't want to believe in evolution that's fine, I evolved, you didn't.

Answer 7

Here is an example. Peppered moths

In the north east before the industrial age. Peppered moths were mainly white with black spots. Resting on birch trees, they were camoflauged from predators. All moths that were black with white spots were more conspicious and had less of a chance for survival. During the early industrial ages in the north east soot and pollution stained the bark of the birch trees black. There was a sharp decrease in peppered moth population (white moth were eaten) The pop. was replaced with the black moths which were more fit for survival and passed on their genes. Then after sanctions were passed and the birch trees returned to white colored bark the reverse happened.

Basicially, the most fit survive to pass on their traits. Tiny (or large) variation can prove to be benficial (or detrimental) and if one in a population is more hearty or has better access to resources in times of stress there mare more likely to survive and produce offspring carrying these traits.

Answer 8

Humans tend to defend long held beliefs against all logic for psychological reasons mostly derived from foolish pride. How all mater and life came to be is the greatest question of all. And naturally opinions on the subject are the most ardently defended. Consider this: 12 men and their followers witnessed a supernatural event that they not only refused to deny, but professed at the cost of their own lives. Is it uncommon for a man or woman to die for what they believe? No. But who would die for a Savior they knew to be a lie?

Answer 9

1. More off spring are produced than can survive
2. resources are limited
3. offspring have variation (not identical)
4. the ones best able to compete for limited resources, are the most likely to reproduce, when they reproduce, the likely pass to on their "fit" traits

Course its just a theory, you know not a fact or anything...like gravity being a theory


Of course you read that in the Bible right in there amongst the rest of the data sets, graphs, tables and pie charts

Answer 10

First, let me congratulate you for searching for good evidence based answers and for your conversion from indoctrination.

I would recommend you look for books by Richard Dawkins. He has written several books on evolution that are easy to understand for the lay person. "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "The Blind Watchmaker" are good ones. If you like huge tomes, try "An Ancestors Tale".

In our everyday life, dogs are a good place to look. They have the same genetic make-up as wolves and are descended from wolves. We have German Shepards which still look somewhat like wolves and beagles that don't. Wolves and dogs can still interbreed producing fertile offspring and thus are not far apart genetically.

Here's another example: Ordinary beef or dairy cattle are still closely enough related to buffalo that they can interbreed with them and produce fertile offspring. Ordinary cattle are also still evolutionarily closely enough related to yaks that they can interbreed, but the male offspring are not fertile, thus making them one step farther apart on the evolution ladder.

Here's a third example: Horses and donkeys can interbreed. A female horse and male donkey produce mules. But, mules are nearly 100% sterile and cannot reproduce.

Not being able to produce fertile offspring is the first step in total separation of species. Producing infertile offspring is evidence of a common ancestor.

These are examples of evolution in progress with living animals we can see today.

In the fossil record, horse/donkey/zebra ancestors have been traced back step by step to a creature the size of a rat during the age of dinasaurs.

Answer 11

ugh dont even get me started the world is a crazy place where there are too many questions to be answered as far as we know it. I belive in both ways that evolution happened. God put us here, but i also belive that we evolved from monkeys. There are too many scienctists that belive in too many ways. I could go on forever about this and i woudl like to know too! There are a lot of things i want to know. Like what is the point of human life. Why were we put here and how did the world start and how will it end? I wish i could be here for both of them even if it sounds crazy. Are there aleins or deformed creatures! Yea i'd liek to know but i guess i never will for sure...