I need help from someone who knows a lot about evolution....!!?

Question

Alright...I'm trying to help one of my friends understand evolution. They need to understand it and believe it happens because it is crucial to what they are studying in college. So how could you explain these things to someone who is very skeptical of evolution.....how do we know that the transitional fossils we have found are not just extint species? Whats the proof that we evolved from them? So we have a lot of similar traits of the animals around us, but that doesn't mean we all came from a common ancestor. If we were created by the same intelligent being, don't you think he would create us similar? And yes, there is lots of information out there about how we evolved, from genetic mutations and stuff, but we have never witnessed it happening, so how do we know that's what really happens? I have failed at giving a convincing answer to these questions, so any help would be greatly appreciated!! Thank you!!

Emucompboy--to answer your question of how he got into college without biology...well, he has had biology. In fact, he is an anthropology major and has taken several courses dealing with just human evolution alone, and he is still not convinced!! That's what I'm dealing with...he is very very stubborn and questions everything!!

Answer 1

{Thanks Vincent! And to Larry R for the kind words. I also *really* like (and agree with) Larry R's answer. I am one of those Catholics who is a staunch supporter of evolution. The following was written during half-time of the Gold Cup final ... with some cleanup editing after the game ... the U.S. won ... woo hoo!}

>"how do we know that the transitional fossils we have found are not just extint species?"

Because the fossils have certain *combination* of patterns:
1. They show *sequences* in the development of structures ... not just one feature, but several (e.g. the changing angle of the hips, the structures of the knees, the shape of the lower vertebrae, the angle of the connection between the skull and the neck, etc. etc. all point to a slow progression to upright walking ... a similar group of other features shows a slow progression in the size of the brain ... or the development of the hand ... or the development of the vocal cords). If these were just unrelated extinct species, there would be no such patterns.
2. They are found in the expected parts of the world. (E.g. we don't find the bones of the wrong species in S. America, or in Australia). Again, if these were all unrelated extinct species, there would be no clear geographical patterns.
3. They are found at the right layers of rock. (I.e. the progression in structural changes corresponds to the progression of where they are found in the rock layers.) If they were all unrelated extinct species, then there would be no such patterns.
4. The radiometric dating of the fossils and the rocks they are found with also corresponds to the layers, and to the stages in the structural development. If they were unrelated extinct species, they would all have the same radiometric age, or random ages (if God was creating them at random).

It's all of these *together* that says these are transitional fossils that show a developing *line* of animals ... less developed to more developed, older to newer ... and not isolated and unrelated creatures.

> "Whats the proof that we evolved from them?"

Don't say "proof", say "evidence" ... then see the previous pgf.

> "If we were created by the same intelligent being, don't you think he would create us similar?"

It's not just "similar" but a *degree* of similarity. It's not just that A (humans) and B (chimps) are similar ... but A is *more* similar to B than it is to C (gorillas) ... and A is closer to B and C than it is to D (orangutans), etc. etc. Until we're looking at *degrees* of similarity that fade as you go from A to B, C, D, E, F, G, H ... on to Z (microorganisms).

And this pattern is not just true from the human viewpoint ... but you can look at *ANY* organism and find the same pattern A B C D ... .

And this pattern is not just in the fossils, but in the genes, and in the DNA of every living organism.

This *pattern* of similarity is beautifully explained by common ancestry.

> "but we have never witnessed it happening, so how do we know that's what really happens?"

Have we ever witnessed evolution in general? Absolutely. Every time we breed cocker spaniels to get floppier ears we are taking advantage of the process of evolution. Every time you get a new flu shot its because the flu viruses have evolved.

Have we ever directly witnessed evolution of something like humans from earlier forms? Since that is a process that takes millions of years then obviously the answer is no.

But it is one of the key anti-science fallacies to say that science cannot know anything about a process that occurs on timescales longer than human lifespans. A star takes a million years to form, and yet we know a *lot* about how stars form. Likewise a planet, or a galaxy. Or how continents drift, or mountains form, or glaciers grow and shrink, or climate changes. Just because these are slow processes doesn't mean that science can't understand them.

But even look at a redwood tree. When you come upon a giant redwood tree in the forest, how do we know that it is 600 years old? ... "no one has ever witnessed" a giant redwood grow from seed to full-size ... but that doesn't mean we must therefore conclude that the tree was placed there by God in its current form.

In the same way that we can see a tree grow a little bit in 6 years and conclude that the same process can produce a giant redwood in 600 years ... we can see what evolution can do in 600 years and conclude that the same process can produce significant changes in 60,000 years ... or enormous changes in 6 million years.

Answer 2

I can't even try to answer better than secretsauce, but will add a couple things.

Is your friend interested enough to read a book on this topic? I highly recommend "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carroll. It talks about fossil evidence and how DNA evidence backs up previously discovered fossil evidence. It is written so you don't have to be a biologist to understand it.

Here's an example that might help too. Polar bears came from Brown bears. As the Brown bears tried to move farther north, they were unable to catch sufficient prey because they were too visible on the snow and ice. But, some of them were slightly lighter colored and were slightly more successful in their hunt. Those that caught more prey were healthier and produced more offspring. Some of the offspring were lighter colored still and were even more successful blending into the background when hunting. After enough time went by and the bears became lighter and lighter they quit breeding with the brown bears and became a separate species. And, this didn't take millions of years. It happened over 20-30,000 years.

Relying on an intelligent designer just moves the origin question farther back. Where did the designer come from?

Answer 3

> it is crucial to what they are studying in college
How did they get into college without taking a biology class?

> how do we know that the transitional fossils we have found are not just extint species?
We don't. The continuum of fossils is on the order of "smoking gun" circumstantial evidence. The best explanation for what we observe is evolution. We're looking at "beyond a reasonable doubt" here.

> Whats the proof that we evolved from them?
There's a lot of hominid fossils. Having us evolve from previous hominids is the best explanation for our existence.

> If we were created by the same intelligent being, don't you think he would create us similar?
Not according to the Bible. According to the Bible, Adam looked around and didn't find any of his "kind." The existence of chimps blows a serious hole into Genesis Biblical Creationism. God created mankind in His own image... but the Bible doesn't say anything about God then doing the same favor for chimpkind.


> If we were created by the same intelligent being, don't you think he would create us similar?
Objection! Intelligent Being not in evidence, Your Honor! Sorry, no direct evidence of a Creator or creators or intelligent designers. There's less evidence for a Creator than for evolution.

> but we have never witnessed it happening
Have so. Mini-dachshunds aren't wolves. A couple of mutations and a few hundred generations of selection separate the mini-dachshund from its wolf ancestors.

> so how do we know that's what really happens?
It's the best explanation for what we do observe. Smoking gun.

Answer 4

Some of the best evidence comes from molecular data. Unfortunately that's a little complicated to explain to some one over the internet. Basically it deals with comparing DNA differences between species and the average mutation rate of DNA during replication. There are lots of examples that show that closely related species have less DNA differences than distantly related species and that the time line the fossil record suggests that species shared common ancestors are consistent with mutation rate. If you want more info try looking up information on "molecular clocks:

Answer 5

>>Atheists, do you really know a lot about science and evolution? this is getting boring. what kind of question is that? are you really interested in any of this or are you just playing a evil sick game at the expense of others? >>How many of you actually are educated in science and evolution high-school 13 years. major chemestry and "technics" (50% electronics, 50% engineering) i studied at uni for about 1 year physics major and chemistry minor. then i switched to computer science, did that for 2 years - with a lot of theory. i love to think about stuff like "Is P=NP ?" i lack discipline or else i'd have been finished with university looong ago ... >>How many of you have ever studied psychology and theology in a structured setting such as in a university. actually, while i studied computer science my secondary subject was psychology. i never studied theology, but we had a prof. which did textual analysis of the bible with computers. many different authors that book has ;-) >>I am studying to be a RN and have taken a few science class as a requirement. Plus science is heavily influenced at work (hospital) and at home my mom is an IMC nurse, I hear a lot of scientific lingo. Plus I also have a great interest in science, which is actually the only came that plenty of you atheists have. what's RN? what's IMC? what kind of scientific courses? hospital is medicine. that's a pretty narrow field... you sound like a armchair-scientist... >>I admit I probably don't have great knowledge in religion. I do see atheist here claiming that they know a great deal about science, I just say prove it. i still don't know what it is you want? so you don't know a lot about religion, you don't know a lot about science, ... ?!?!? WTF DO YOU WANT ?!?!?!? this is my last post on any of your questions until you tell in simple and logical structure, what you say/want/whatever... >>Okay so what about those atheists who don't have a degree in science and/or have never studied it in a college setting. Why isn't there knowledge it the same as any other layperson? it isnt? magic? >>The knowledge may be same so it is? >>but the opinion of that knowledge is different. opinion of knowledge? well, you don't have to know a lot about science to know that you can trust it. and you have to realize that the trust is not like a 100% absolute believe that it's the holy truth... >>A person may know and understand how something works, they have a negative opinion of it; that doesn't necessarily mean that they are denying the facts. "negative opinion" about "knowledge"? either i know, or i don't. are you 4 years old? either ask a real question in an effort to seek knowledge or understanding, or stop this harum-scarum beating around the bush making people angry stupid blah... i feel like you are playing a sick game... and i'll stop playing with you for now...

Answer 6

secretsauce is clearly the best here on this, so I won't even try to top him.

I'd like to advise you to come at your friend by more than one angle here.

It sounds like you are dealing with someone who does not WANT to be convinced... he's seen the evidence, and he's not stupid... what I think you have here is an example of "A man convinced against his will is not convinced.”

I'm going to GUESS that your friend at some point ran into that particular kind of Christian that thinks that belief in Darwin and belief in God are somehow antithetical.

This, of course, is NOT true, but a lot of people think it is... they think because Darwin got adopted as the poster boy for "modern philosophy" everything he wrote is a direct attack on Christianity. This isn't true, but a lot of people have been told it is....

So you probably should suppliment your explanation of evolution with a reassurance that by believing in Darwin your friend is NOT walking away from Christianity.

Unless your friend is from a REALLY radical Christian sect, he's probably willing to admit that the Catholic Church is not just Christian, but a pretty conservative branch of Christianity. Yeah, there are some liberal Catholics out there, but as a whole, the institution is pretty conservative, you have to admit. I mean Rome fell to the Goths back in A.D. 410 they only dropped the Latin Mass in the mid 1960s, (and there are still people fighting to bring it back).

So you might be interested in what the Catholics have to say on the subject.

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are."

"John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

So while many people on both sides of the debate have DISTORTED Darwin into supporting the idea that somehow "Science" (whatever that is.... ) "proves" the mechanistic, atheistic view that that people are souless meat puppets that cease to exist when we die; that's not a postion many scientists or most Christians would take.

So you may want to reassure your friend that just because evolution happens to be true, it does NOT logically follow that Christianity is false, God doesn't exist, or the Bible is just a bunch of hogwash.

And it isn't just the Catholics either.

Prof. Colling -- who received a Ph.D. in microbiology, chairs the biology department at Olivet Nazarene and is himself a devout conservative Christian -- from coming out swinging. In his new book, "Random Designer," he writes: "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues; "evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny."

So while you try to show your friend the facts of science, show him as well that these facts are in no way an attack on his faith either.

That might make him more receptive to what you have to say regarding rock layers and genetic mutations.

Answer 7

They are doing research now on the Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that comes only from Maternal figures. So now they can figure out where we branched out from. They know that we did not interbreed with Neanderthal because of this research.

Answer 8

That is a job for "secretsauce", he is one of the real expert in that domain. I star the question, he'll see it, you'll get the best answer possible.