Teach me why I should believe in evolution.

[Sojourner<><]

It's back to school time and I'm hungry for knowledge, which means I'm ready to ask lots of questions. So, if you are a Christian and you think you can convince me to believe in evolution, here's your chance. I will limit myself to aking questions only and I will not produce any evidence to support my own views if you follow 2 rules: 1)You should answer my questions using your own understanding (if you reference the conclusions of a scientific study you must be able to explain them) 2)You shouldn't answer my questions using the opinions of anyone else.

Up to the challenge? I hope so.

Here's my first question: Why should I believe in evolution?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why should I believe in evolution?


When i look out my window i see my dalmation, actually she is sitting on the garden because i won't let her in now.

Can i will myself to believe that she is not here?
can i replace my mental image of her on the garden with that of my other dog? ie can i by force of my will change what i see with my eyes? if i could, would you think that this was a normal or natural ability, or even entirely sane?


Likewise i read about the chromosome of the human beings 2 being a fusion event of chimp 2p and 2q. I learn that there is a 2nd centrosome and an internal teleomere sequence in the human one, include a sequence of teleomeres backwards, just as predicted if this is a fusion event.


Likewise i look at the nested hierarchical structure of HERV and the pseudogene in human beings which makes us get scurvey, which we share only with chimps.


And i interpret this evidence with respect to the theory of evolution, with the principles of common descent and i recognize that these are evidence for the TofE.

does that mean i believe in the TofE, or that i assent to the evidence as demonstrating it?

Like my dog out the window, can i through the force of my will change my assent to believe that it is evidence for special creation and human beings are not continuous with the rest of creation that the evidence points rather a unique creation straight from the hand of God? Even though the evidence can not rightfully be interpreted in that way. It is genuinely evidence for common descent not a unique creation.

That is why i object to the usage of the word "believe" here. For i can no more change my understanding of the TofE then i can see another dog on the garden bed. I simply assent to the evidence of my eyes.

 

[shernren]

Explaining evolutionism isn't a "one-size-fits-all" Band-Aid. If somebody asks me "Why must I be saved?" I can confidently tell him about sin and death and Jesus and God and heaven - because everyone is a sinner, and everyone needs Jesus.

But that's not the same for evolution. Some creationists disbelieve evolution because of certain interpretations of facts. Others, because of theological considerations, such as the idea that a non-historical Adam will lead to a non-historical Jesus. Others because evolution makes suffering and death something that happened before the Fall. And to each of these questions (and many more) there are different answers.

Basically, all the evidence points to evolution. But I need to know in what particular way you don't think they point to evolution. Then I can explain whatever you might have misunderstood.

So. Can you tell me what your Number 1 problem is with evolution? You could put it across in a question if you want.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Explaining evolutionism isn't a "one-size-fits-all" Band-Aid. If somebody asks me "Why must I be saved?" I can confidently tell him about sin and death and Jesus and God and heaven - because everyone is a sinner, and everyone needs Jesus.

But that's not the same for evolution. Some creationists disbelieve evolution because of certain interpretations of facts. Others, because of theological considerations, such as the idea that a non-historical Adam will lead to a non-historical Jesus. Others because evolution makes suffering and death something that happened before the Fall. And to each of these questions (and many more) there are different answers.

Basically, all the evidence points to evolution. But I need to know in what particular way you don't think they point to evolution. Then I can explain whatever you might have misunderstood.

So. Can you tell me what your Number 1 problem is with evolution? You could put it across in a question if you want.

Well, the purpose of my thread is really personal study of the commonly held view of TofE. I think it would be very informative to see how a theistic evolutionary world view is structured and I can only do that by asking questions as if I have as little understanding of it as possible. If I point out what I disagree with and engage in a debate, it will defeat my original purpose. So, I have to feign ignorance in order to do this correctly.

So, you stated that all the evidence points to TofE. What evidence would that be?

 

[Sojourner<><]

When i look out my window i see my dalmation, actually she is sitting on the garden because i won't let her in now.

Can i will myself to believe that she is not here?
can i replace my mental image of her on the garden with that of my other dog? ie can i by force of my will change what i see with my eyes? if i could, would you think that this was a normal or natural ability, or even entirely sane?


Likewise i read about the chromosome of the human beings 2 being a fusion event of chimp 2p and 2q. I learn that there is a 2nd centrosome and an internal teleomere sequence in the human one, include a sequence of teleomeres backwards, just as predicted if this is a fusion event.

Likewise i look at the nested hierarchical structure of HERV and the pseudogene in human beings which makes us get scurvey, which we share only with chimps.

And i interpret this evidence with respect to the theory of evolution, with the principles of common descent and i recognize that these are evidence for the TofE.

Are you listing these here as primary evidence for your view of TofE or are they examples of the evidence you have interpreted?

does that mean i believe in the TofE, or that i assent to the evidence as demonstrating it?

Like my dog out the window, can i through the force of my will change my assent to believe that it is evidence for special creation and human beings are not continuous with the rest of creation that the evidence points rather a unique creation straight from the hand of God? Even though the evidence can not rightfully be interpreted in that way. It is genuinely evidence for common descent not a unique creation.

That is why i object to the usage of the word "believe" here. For i can no more change my understanding of the TofE then i can see another dog on the garden bed. I simply assent to the evidence of my eyes.

So what evidence is it that you agree with?

 

[gluadys]

It's back to school time and I'm hungry for knowledge, which means I'm ready to ask lots of questions. So, if you are a Christian and you think you can convince me to believe in evolution, here's your chance. I will limit myself to aking questions only and I will not produce any evidence to support my own views if you follow 2 rules: 1)You should answer my questions using your own understanding (if you reference the conclusions of a scientific study you must be able to explain them) 2)You shouldn't answer my questions using the opinions of anyone else.

Up to the challenge? I hope so.

Here's my first question: Why should I believe in evolution?

'Believe' has many meanings and most of them are not applicable to evolution. To 'believe in' usually means to have trust in someone, to have confidence in their integrity. No one would say you should 'believe in' evolution in that sense.

'Believe' can also mean exercising faith, accepting something as true even though sense and reason provide no basis for it. Such belief is commended in the well known 11th chapter of Hebrews, for the great heroes of the faith had to trust in God's guidance without knowing where it would lead. This meaning does not apply to evolution either.

Finally 'believe' can mean to accept something as true for good and valid reasons. This is the sense in which one can speak of believing evolution. Evolution is an observed fact (and this applies as much to so-called macro-evolution as to micro-evolution). We have seen species change their characteristics under environmental pressure (i.e. natural selection), and we have seen new species emerge from old ones. If we can believe our sensory data at all--and we should, did not God create vision to be used?--then seeing is believing.

We also have much evidence that even in cases where evolution has not been directly observed, it must have happened. rmwilliams has mentioned some lines of evidence. In this case we rely both on sense and on reason.

So don't 'believe' in evolution as if it required trust or faith. Examine the evidence honestly. Try to understand the reasoning behind the theory. And then believe, if you choose to do so on the basis of observation and logic. There is no other valid reason to accept evolution.

 

[Sojourner<><]

'Believe' has many meanings and most of them are not applicable to evolution. To 'believe in' usually means to have trust in someone, to have confidence in their integrity. No one would say you should 'believe in' evolution in that sense.

'Believe' can also mean exercising faith, accepting something as true even though sense and reason provide no basis for it. Such belief is commended in the well known 11th chapter of Hebrews, for the great heroes of the faith had to trust in God's guidance without knowing where it would lead. This meaning does not apply to evolution either.

Finally 'believe' can mean to accept something as true for good and valid reasons. This is the sense in which one can speak of believing evolution. Evolution is an observed fact (and this applies as much to so-called macro-evolution as to micro-evolution). We have seen species change their characteristics under environmental pressure (i.e. natural selection), and we have seen new species emerge from old ones. If we can believe our sensory data at all--and we should, did not God create vision to be used?--then seeing is believing.

We also have much evidence that even in cases where evolution has not been directly observed, it must have happened. rmwilliams has mentioned some lines of evidence. In this case we rely both on sense and on reason.

So don't 'believe' in evolution as if it required trust or faith. Examine the evidence honestly. Try to understand the reasoning behind the theory. And then believe, if you choose to do so on the basis of observation and logic. There is no other valid reason to accept evolution.

My question to you is then what evidence should I examine that should lead me to a rational conclusion towards TofE?

 

[shernren]

Well, the purpose of my thread is really personal study of the commonly held view of TofE. I think it would be very informative to see how a theistic evolutionary world view is structured and I can only do that by asking questions as if I have as little understanding of it as possible. If I point out what I disagree with and engage in a debate, it will defeat my original purpose. So, I have to feign ignorance in order to do this correctly.

So, you stated that all the evidence points to TofE. What evidence would that be?

Well, if you ask me, I don't think your approach will work. You already do have a certain mindset about how TEs and the TofE work. It's inevitable. What we need to do is to deconstruct whatever is wrong in that mindset and replace it with what is accurate.

But if you really want to stick to the evidence, discuss the points rmswilliams has raised. They are good places to start.

 

[random_guy]

My question to you is then what evidence should I examine that should lead me to a rational conclusion towards TofE?

rmwilliamsll gave an excellent example in his post. Basically, humans have 23 chromosome pairs and chimps have 24. If both humans and chimps share a common ancestor, why do we have different chromosome counts. A hypothesis was formed that either one pair of chromosomes split in chimps or one chromosome fused together in humans. Scientists leaned on the fusing theory because there were known mechanisms for this. This was before we had technology to accurately examine chromosomes. Once we had the technology to study chromosomes more closely, we find that one of our chromosome is actually a fusion of 2 similar chromosomes in chimps, p and q.

Likewise i read about the chromosome of the human beings 2 being a fusion event of chimp 2p and 2q. I learn that there is a 2nd centrosome and an internal teleomere sequence in the human one, include a sequence of teleomeres backwards, just as predicted if this is a fusion event.

The second sentence is extremely important because teleomeres only occur at the end of chromosomes unless something funky, as fusion, occurred. This is just one example evidence for common ancestory of humans and chimps.

Other key examples are

Likewise i look at the nested hierarchical structure of HERV and the pseudogene in human beings which makes us get scurvey, which we share only with chimps.

I suggest you read more about HERV's and pseudogenes (as they can be used as evidence for common ancestory of many different groups) and if you have any questions, ask here.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It looks like I'm having a little trouble getting the thread going in the right direction here, so I'm going to throw a few more questions out there. Also please take note that I'm aiming at a top down approach here and I would like to get at the specifics of the evidence as we get there.

What are the mechanisms behind TofE and how do they work?

Why is it that TofE is the most widely accepted theory on the origins of the species?

What has been the most influential evidence supporting TofE up until now?

 

[random_guy]

It looks like I'm having a little trouble getting the thread going in the right direction here, so I'm going to throw a few more questions out there. Also please take note that I'm aiming at a top down approach here and I would like to get at the specifics of the evidence as we get there.

What are the mechanisms behind TofE and how do they work?

Selection and mutation. Mutation create genetic diversity, selection helps remove the harmful mutations and helps select for advantageous traits.

Why is it that TofE is the most widely accepted theory on the origins of the species?

Because we can observe it in action, we have an abundance of transitional fossil to support the diversification of the major groups (reptile-mammal, tetrapods, theropod-bird, etc). Not only that, it is the only current theory on the diversification of life since no other theory can explain the evidence as well.

What has been the most influential evidence supporting TofE up until now?

It depends on what part of the TofE you're talking about. There's so much evidence, you really can't just pick one.. That said, I'd probably say that the convergence of the evidence towards evolution. Fossil records, DNA, protein analysis, taxonomy, and nested heirachy all support evolution. If evolution was incorrect, it would be unlikely all the evidence points to the same incorrect theory.

 

[Rin4Christ]

What are the mechanisms behind TofE and how do they work?

I am not sure your level of science, but I will give you an example that I heard when I was a junior in college in my populations genetics class.

The Hawaiian islands had to be populated by organisms that could somehow travel across the sea. There is a very large variety of fruit fly species in Hawaii that are not seen anywhere else in the world. It is speculated that a single species of fruit fly managed to travel from California on a fallen log adrift in the pacific or something similar. The reason it is believed that these many species of fly arose from one species in California is because of chromosomal inversions and reassortments.

Chromosomal inversions are a well characterised phenomenon where a chromosome with a gene order 12345 will randomly flip a section of the chromosome during mitosis so that the end chromosome might have an order of 14325 or 32145. I could explain the exact mechanism if you are interested.

When a chromosome inversion happens the resulting offspring have a hard time mating with others of their species because during meiosis chromosomes have to line up, and chromosomes with different orders cannot line up side by side.

these chromosomal inversions (along with insertions, deletions, and translocations) can be traced. 2 species that are closely related will have similar gene order on their chromosomes. more distantly related organisms will have more genes in different order or on different chromosomes. In Hawaiian fruit flies scientists have been able to look at the genomes of various species and have found some species that are very similar to the california fruit fly. Other species are similar to the first class, but more genes are out of order. they can map when various chromosomal rearrangements happened by studying how related different species differ.

for example, Imagine a piece of paper with a blue line drawn across it horizontally, then cut it in half (vertically) and draw a red line on one and a green line on the other. cut each of these in half and draw a different color on each, and then cut each of these pieces in half. now you have 8 pieces of paper each with a unique color pattern (genome) but you can see how there was only one pattern to start with. When you look at Hawaii fruit flies, you can see how they all could have come from the California fruit fly.

This is long, and its much easier to explain in person with illustration. but that's the limitations of message boards. If you have any specific question on what I have explained feel free to ask.

 

[stumpjumper]

My question to you is then what evidence should I examine that should lead me to a rational conclusion towards TofE?

I would reccomend picking up a good book that lists the foundational findings and science behind the ToE... An easy to read book would be Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything...

I would then read a good book about evolution from a Christian perspective... John Haught is in depth but Brian McLaren has a good one called The Story We Find Ourselves In that is very good...

Amazon on that one (I highly recommend it): http://www.amazon.com/Story-Find-Ou...6505/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8920261-9271068?ie=UTF8

IMO, the best evidence for the ToE is collective not individual. The radiological, geological, and cosmological evidence for a very old earth and universe is overwhelming. The fossil evidence shows variance and transition over time... Once you start putting two and two together, you will see for yourself where the evidence points...

 

[gluadys]

It looks like I'm having a little trouble getting the thread going in the right direction here, so I'm going to throw a few more questions out there. Also please take note that I'm aiming at a top down approach here and I would like to get at the specifics of the evidence as we get there.

What are the mechanisms behind TofE and how do they work?

The principle mechanisms of evolution are mutation and natural selection. Some other important mechanisms are sexual selection and genetic drift. Also gene flow. All of the latter are various means of selection.

Mutation (a change in the DNA) is the source of variation. The other mechanisms determine which variations will survive and come to be normal for the species.

Why is it that TofE is the most widely accepted theory on the origins of the species?

Because it is the only one that explains the evidence from many different sources and is able to predict new fruitful lines of inquiry with accuracy. A stunning example of successful prediction was shown in the recent finding of Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is a very fish-like tetrapod which could be either an ancestor or a close relative of the ancestor of all terrestrial vertebrates.

Before Tiktaalik was discovered, scientists made three predictions, based on what we already knew about fossils that are transitional between fish and amphibians.

• There must have been a species transitional between the latest fish in the line between fish and amphibians and the earliest tetrapod we already knew of.
  
• This species must have lived at a certain period of time.
  
• This species must have lived in a certain environment which over time would have developed into a certain type of rock.

They then did a survey to find the requisite type of rock of the predicted age and explored it for fossils. And they found a fossil that met the predicted characteristics of the sort of transitional they were looking for. They called it Tiktaalik roseae

What has been the most influential evidence supporting TofE up until now?

The most compelling evidence supporting the TofE today is the direct observation of evolution both within species and in the formation of new species. For several examples of this (not just finches, though they are the stars of the book) see The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner.

Other than direct observation, I find the taxonomic evidence (the nested hierarchy) the most compelling. Especially since it is now supported by genetic as well as morphological evidence (and so is now often called the "twin-nested" hierarchy) But to understand why it is so compelling you need to understand something about classification and why nested hierarchies are so rare.

Darwin himself felt that the evidence from geographical distribution of species and from embryology was very compelling. An excellent recent book on the contribution of embryology to the understanding of evolution is Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll.

You may be surprised that I haven't mentioned the fossil record. You may be even more surprised to learn that one of the principal proponents of evolution today (Richard Dawkins) considers the fossil record unnecessary to establish the truth of evolution. He makes this statement near the beginning of The Ancestor's Tale. On the other hand he also asserts that if we had nothing but the fossil record, incomplete as it is and always will be, we could establish the fact of evolution from the fossil record alone.

Certainly the fossil record is far more complete than it was a century and a half ago, what with the Burgess Shale, the Ediacaran fossils and discoveries like Tiktaalik, not to mention the many hominid discoveries of the 20th century. And with all these discoveries, not a single find has been inconsistent with the TofE.

 

[Sojourner<><]

What sort of impact have these findings had on the scientific community?

 

[notto]

For a good overview of the independent lines of evidence that lead to the conclusions the theory of evolution is based on, read this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It is long, but if you really are interested in understanding the theory of evolution and not a strawman version of it, it is a good piece to get you started.

Feel free to ask questions. Many of us are willing to answer them to the best of our abilities. You will notice that it is well reference and based on research that has been done.

 

[notto]

What sort of impact have these findings had on the scientific community?

Evolution is the concept that unifies biology. The theory makes sense of what we observe in biology.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Evolution is the concept that unifies biology. The theory makes sense of what we observe in biology.

To what degree does it make sense of what is observed?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Good post. I see that you have a good grasp on the topic. It will take me a while to sift through your response and come up with some more questions so I'll come back to you later.

 

[Sojourner<><]

For a good overview of the independent lines of evidence that lead to the conclusions the theory of evolution is based on, read this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It is long, but if you really are interested in understanding the theory of evolution and not a strawman version of it, it is a good piece to get you started.

Feel free to ask questions. Many of us are willing to answer them to the best of our abilities. You will notice that it is well reference and based on research that has been done.

Very in-depth stuff. Unfortunately it's a little bit too complicated for a layman such as myself since I find it extremely difficult to grasp the larger view of the topic from all this scattered evidence. Can you perhaps explain the significance of the important findings?