PRINT
Please know that I am not trying to be pejorative or pick a fight here. This question can apply to both theists and agnostic/atheist. It can also apply to anyone - student, lay-person or guru.
I have been asking this exact question of family, friends and co-workers who say (sometimes adamantly) that they firmly believe that humans can be traced back to a common ancestor such as a single celled organism, or perhaps a more complex organism like a fish or lobster.
I ask you to give me the specific scientific argument, and then to tell me where you read or heard about the argument if possible.
I would like to know your candid answers right from the hip, and I would like to ask you (on your honor), to answer this without immediately trucking over to Google to cherry-pick an informed answer. I promise not to take you to task over what you answer.
Thanks very much for reading this, and I look forward to your responses!
Comments
I asked this question on April 10, and as of today April 14, the question has been voted down at least three times.
This is no surprise to me, however I think it a bit unfair to simply vote something down without providing some sort of justification. Is this question inappropriate for a site that focuses on "conversations about faith and culture"? Is it perhaps the way the question was worded? Is anyone allowed to question Darwinism?
I am sometimes challenged by others to describe why I believe what I believe, and it was not until recently that I began to be more comfortable in engaging that question in a confident way.
I know that both theists and atheists can put faith in common ancestry and macroevolution, but few are able to give me a coherent answer to the question above.
So what was the real clinching point for you? What finally convinced you that molecules could self-organize and increase in complexity over time?
I appreciate your quest for discourse. The only way I can be completely be candid about my response is to share with you the various steps that led me to believe in the plausibility of evolution.
I was raised in the church and like many others on this site I was told the earth was made thousands of years ago in the course of seven days. Sure there were people who would say "but how long is a day," however, they were definitely the minority. It wasn't until I was seventeen or so when my biology teacher at my Christian high school taught a semester of evolution. The idea was that he would teach evolution for a semester and then debunk it in the following semester. The approach was novel.
After the semester of evolution, I was egger to hear the opposing argument. Unfortunately, my teacher was unable to provide a good rebuttal. In fact after the class was over I asked him honestly what he believed. He told me that it was hard for him to understand it all.
After this I wasn't completely sold on evolution, however, it did put the theory on the table. It made me come to terms with the simple fact that I don't know what has happened in the past.
Now you ask why do I believe in "macro"evolution?
1) First off to differentiate between macro and micro evolution is silly. There is just evolution. There is plenty of evidence of evolution. Look at the AIDS virus and hows it evolved or if you are a creationist how its morphed. Your distinction between micro and macro is a common misunderstanding of evolution and comes from a lack of understanding time and scale.
2) The fossil record (Just take a walk through the hall of Origins of Man at the Natural History museum in New York)
3) Finally. If the universe was created thousands of years ago, then it would appear young. The universe does not appear to be young. Therefore, the earth was not created thousands of years ago.
If the world is young but has the appearance that it is old, then God is one tricky SOB.
God is not a trickster
Therefore, The would is not young.
Obviously both these arguments are silly. If you are interested in understanding evolution I would consider talking as many classes as you can in genetics, endocrinology and physiology. It might not hurt you to pursue some sort of research degree in one of the aforementioned fields. I think you would really enjoy seeing first hand how complex the systems are and how they build on each other step by step. Its truly fascinating. And I bet it would deepen your understanding of evolution.
Hi Mike D - First, thank you for stating your case and for taking the time to go through some of your reasoning. I don't think you actually answered the question, but I am happy to get some dialogue moving either way. Thank you too for sharing the context of where you started and how you came to believe in the Darwinist story.
For others reading this, please think of my original question as a poll of sorts. I collect answers, then I can hopefully begin to collect common threads of reasoning.
Let me be clear on one thing for Mike D and others: I was quite careful actually to use the term "macroevolution." Here's why: When Darwinists want to make "unbelievers" look silly, they ask them "Do you believe in evolution?" If the unbeliever says "No - evolution is a bunch of bunk!" then the Darwinist will often label them a Young Earth Creationist and then suggest that the unbeliever read more and also visit a museum for good measure (even if the unbeliever is a Hindu who thinks the earth is 4.6 billion yrs old).
Darwinists often treat "evolution" as an all or nothing concept, and if anyone questions it, then they automatically must be working as an intern for the Creation Museum. This is simply not reasonable or fair discourse. So, let's unpack what was said above about micro and macro evolution and see if this concept is indeed "silly."
Mike D states: "Your distinction between micro and macro is a common misunderstanding of evolution and comes from a lack of understanding time and scale."
Well, mainstream, secular science disagrees with you:
UC Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article//evo_48
TalkOrigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what
Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/macroevolution
Biology Online: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Macroevolution
Websters Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macroevolution
It was secular, methodological naturalists that coined the terms micro and macro evolution during the formation of the New Darwinian Synthesis in the early 20th century. They did this because the terms refer to markedly different phenomenon, and markedly different evidence for the phenomenon. Micro and Macro do have implications for time and scale as Mike D states. But, as the UC Berkeley site correctly points out:
"It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read."
Not so, however with micro evolution (or, changes below the species). Evidence is readily available showing that Finch beaks can change slightly over time due to environmental selective pressures. But - have finches ever been observed turning into another animal type? Definitely not. That would be *macro* evolution, or changes *above* the species. Rather, they tend to oscillate back to their original state, not forward to a new state or type. Similarly, the malaria virus is a wonderful example of microevolution in process over billions of generations. But again, the changes and adaptations of the poor malaria virus equate to a a sinking ship throwing its valuable cargo and critical gear overboard in a desperate effort to stay afloat. This is not anything even mildly approaching macroevolution.
So - believe me when I tell you I have done a lot of reading, and visited many museums, and when you read the fine print, there is a massive difference between what is observed in microevolution, and what is then extrapolated and speculated to macro.
I did ask you to be specific, so answering "the fossil record" or "museum" does not really qualify as being specific. If you had said "the fossil evidence I saw at the museum detailing Giraffe ancestry", then indeed that would be specific.
Your last item number 3 does not qualify at all because you launch into an argument against young earth creationism (YEC) ...and I am not sure why because it has nothing to do with my question, and, because it does nothing to answer why you believe in macroevolution and common descent.
I asked only for specific reasons why you believe in macroevolution. Let's stay with that specific question, and if you vote down or up, it would be good to have you come right out and say why. I know there are lots of "lurkers" who are voting, so get in there and tell me what exact point made you believe in this story. Tell me the book, the author, the speaker, or the exact exhibit that finally clinched it for you.
If you believe in micro evolution, you in essence believe in macro evolution, since the only variable is time. Has not time passed? There is ample evidence to show transitions to new species, both from fossils, and living examples. Just providing a link to a web page is not a credible argument to prove your point. You are intent on misinterpreting the information to your own desires. The bible warns us of people like you.
How about this? In fact, God used evolution to create all the life on earth. If you say macro evolution does not exist, then you are implying that God does not exist. You are the unbeliever.
It does not have to be one or the other, there are many evolutionary biologists that believe in God. Move on to helping people and showing God's grace instead of arguing...
Let's make a distinction between evidence and inference.
The fossil record (evidence) does now show transitions. Transitions are inferred from the evidence of different species occurring over a large time scale.
Paleontologists infer that one discovered fossil, because of its characteristics, and because of the belief in evolution by natural selection, and because of timing, must be an earlier form of another discovered fossil.
Simply lining up fossils in a timeline showing differences in form is not sufficient to "prove" that evolution occurred. Observe the changes that paleontologists and anthropologists have made throughout the past 10 years in the homo lineage. The more fossils they find, the more revisions to the previous tree they developed.
I think we could all stand a healthy appreciation for the difference between facts and inference and for the inherent uncertainty that fuels scientific discovery.
Hey Steve Cherry! When was the moment you became such a tool?
Guest, I'm not sure how you could say such a rude comment about someone who had a very thoughtful question and is seeking answers that may challenge (and strengthen) his own beliefs.
I think we need more people willing to be a magnetic messenger in the name of Christ. You can't bury your head in the sand and hope that everyone is just going to say "oh, ok, that makes sense. I now believe you were right". Intellectual, civil discourse is vital to a sound argument. Keep being you Steve.
-Cherry(no relation)