Hi my Creationist friends! I have a question: You reject the Theory of Evolution but can you please share with me your understanding of the theory? [Spirituality & Religion]
I mean seriously. Not getting in your jabs and barbs but just your honest understanding of what evolution is. I do genuinely find that most people who reject evolution also have a very limited or distorted understanding of it. How familiar are you with the evidence? What are your main stumbling blocks to accepting it? If you're being honest, are they a lack of evidence or because they conflict with your faith?
Let's be civil, let's be honest.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Okay. My understanding is this: organisms changing over time to have new traits, which either kills them off or makes them more likely to survive. I mean the monkey to human thing I think is actually about a common ancestor with apes? Mostly evolution happens through mutations in sex cells, which can be good just as often as bad. My stumbling blocks? Well, I believe it someone. Natural selection makes sense. Like the finches I believe on those islands? If you're a bird with a beak for drinking nectar on an island full of nuts and berries, you will die out unless a mutation allows a differently shaped beak that allows you to crack open those nuts. That makes sense to me. However, I do not believe humans and primates share a common ancestor or that every animal has evolved from a completely different ancestor (which, from what I understand, not many people actually believe that). The Bible said God created humans and animals. I believe some animals have changed and that humans have, too, very slightly. Like heavily active melanin in Africa and the Caribbean. That's evolution. Yes, when something conflicts with my faith, I don't believe it. Because that's what faith is. Believing in what may seem impossible no matter what people say to the contrary and no matter what people put you through. It's trust. That's why.
So that's broadly correct. I think i'd just like to correct the sex cells thing. It can occur at any part in the genome and that genetic change is passed on. Although that brings up the interesting evidence of Endogenous Retro Viruses which we'll come back to with human evolution.
[quote](which, from what I understand, not many people actually believe that)[/quote]
Actually it's just the opposite. Most people who study evolution will agree that all life on the planet has a common ancestor.
As for human evolution, we have a stunning array of fossils that show a transition from totally monkey like ancestors that walked on all fours and lived in the trees to hominids that walked upright and shared features with more primitive apes and modern humans. The pelvis, knees, skull, vertebral attachments are perfectly intermediate between a modern human and a knuckle walking ape. And then we get into the genetic evidence. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while most other apes have 24. Where did that extra pair go? Evolution predicted it must exist somewhere in our genome and it was found at human chromosome 2: a fused set of chromosomes. Then we get back to Endogenous retroviruses, ERVs. These are segments of virus genetic material that are the result of an infection. These ERVs are inserted at random points along the genome in each infection. Yet humans and our closest relative, chumpanzees share these ERV sites along our genome. And the more distantly related, the less overlap there is.
[quote] If you're a bird with a beak for drinking nectar on an island full of nuts and berries, you will die out unless a mutation allows a differently shaped beak that allows you to crack open those nuts.[/quote]
So you accept that physical change occurs with pressure from the environment. That's good. What about when there are a lot of changes over time? The beak changes from opening nuts and catching insects to spearing fish. The wings become less useful for flying because swimming through the water after the fish is more useful. The feet cease to be able to grasp branches because webbed toes are better in the water. Well suddenly you've got a penguin instead of a finch. A very, very different animal. Is it so hard to believe that a few more gradual changes could make it a more distinct animal still?
If you're interested, i'd love to show you some transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. Sorry, i know that was a lot to throw at you. Feel free to respond in much less detail lol.
[quote]when something conflicts with my faith, I don't believe it[/quote]
And i think that's really the reason why people reject evolution. It's not because the evidence is bad. It's not because it doesn't make sense. It's because that's not what they want to believe.
I'll respond to everything except some of those basic corrections that don't really need a response. (Just sort of educating me)
[quote]i'd just like to correct the sex cells thing. It can occur at any part in the genome and that genetic change is passed on. [/quote] I think I meant sex chromosomes? It's only been a year since biology, and I'm already forgetting.
[quote]As for human evolution... [/quote] (The whole part about human evolution.) That was pretty interesting to read. See, I'm almost 16 but that doesn't exactly give me an advantage here. I don't know why some of those things are how they are. My teacher last year in biology said another thing, too. We have a tailbone but (clearly) not tail. Vestigial or something? Something our evolutionary ancestors needed but we don't, but it doesn't hurt anybody so we still have it. It just kinda hangs out. Of course, I don't believe in a non-human ancestor because it goes against what the Bible says, but that doesn't mean I don't still wonder about that kind of stuff lol. I have no earthly idea why the conjoined chromosomes or the tailbone exist. Can't give you a good answer on that one. Sorry.
[quote]Is it so hard to believe that a few more gradual changes could make it a more distinct animal still?[/quote] Yes because most Creationists, Christians in particular, believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old (7-10 thousand I think) based on genealogies and the like written the the Bible. Most, if not all, branches of the theory of evolution require an assumption that the earth is millions, billions, maybe trillions of years old. It would take a very very very very very (very to the nth power as n approaches infinity) long time for such a succession of mutations to occur. With how old we believe the earth is, it just wouldn't work. There are probably other reasons I don't know or can't understand.
[quote]If you're interested, i'd love to show you some transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. [/quote] Sure, I'm curious. Hit me.
[quote]And i think that's really the reason why people reject evolution. It's not because the evidence is bad. It's not because it doesn't make sense. It's because that's not what they want to believe. [/quote]It's hard to explain faith to someone who doesn't have it. It's like fact to us. Everything in the Bible is fact. To nonbelievers, it's a story or whatever but to us, it's objectively true. So it's not that we don't "want to believe" evolution. It's that it's contrary to fact. It's easy for non-Christians to believe it all because you don't consider the Bible as fact, so there's little to contradict the theory of evolution. I don't know that I explained that very well, but I tried. Also I hope I'm not coming off judgemental because that's not the intent.
[quote]I have no earthly idea why the conjoined chromosomes or the tailbone exist. Can't give you a good answer on that one. Sorry.[/quote]
Well that's the thing. There are many such examples which are [i]easily[/i] explained by evolution from a common ancestor but which the creationist must say "God did it....for reasons." Is it more reliable when the answer is consistent and explanatory or when a new explanation must be manufactured every time?
[quote]I don't believe in a non-human ancestor because it goes against what the Bible says,[/quote]
I'd like to suggest to you the idea that it does NOT go against what the bible says. Most christians today accept that evolution has occurred. Only an interpretation of a literal six day creation and animals being created in their present forms is contradicted by evolution. But remember: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." -2 Peter 3:8- Who's to say that God did not create life using evolution as the mechanism. One more natural law just like gravity.
[quote]With how old we believe the earth is, it just wouldn't work. There are probably other reasons I don't know or can't understand.[/quote]
Well this another important aspect of evolution. It does indeed take millions of years for evolution to occur on a large scale. ...But that's exactly what the evidence shows. Geology, paleontology and radiometric dating all show an old earth. Independent fields of science all converging on the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old with only a book written by people who didn't even know that germs cause disease as counter evidence.
Don't worry about coming off as judgmental. You're far more respectful of alternate points of view than many creationists i've spoken to. And for my part, i hope i'm not offending either because that is not my intention.
[quote]Sure, I'm curious. Hit me. [/quote]
Wonderful. So Evolution tells us that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. Given that, evolution predicts that we would find animals that exhibit features which are specific to the ancestral form (dinosaur) and the descendant form (birds), And that's exactly what we found.
This is Microraptor, a crow-sized dinosaur from the early cretaceous period. It shows dinosaur features like a toothy snout, long bony tail, clawed forelimbs and gastralia (ribs along the stomach). But they also show avian features like feet adapted to perching rather than running, hollow bones and most conspicuously feathers which were slightly asymmetrical making them more aerodynamic.
A specimen perfectly in line with what evolution predicts but at odds with a creation model: an animal which is neither perfectly suited to flight nor perfectly suited for life on the ground.
In reference to the idea of taking the bible as a literal history, i'd like to talk with you about Noah's flood. Do you believe that there was a flood that covered the entire earth and killed all the animals not on the ark?
@Pikachu I haven't read your entire conversation but it should be noted that not all animals were on the ark. Only the beasts and the birds. So instead of Noah needing like 2-7 of all 1M odd species, he actually only needed about 50k species. Still a high number but nowhere near as high as most antitheists think it is.
I have read it, of course. That's part of why i'm familiar with the apologetics. No, the bible does not say that they only needed 50k kinds. That was an apologetic: an attempt to explain how the ark story could possibly be true. That is what apologetics [i]are[/i].
@Pikachu Go on then. What does the bible say exactly about the animals on the ark? Because I'll tell you now; it doesn't say two of every single animal like most people, who've clearly never read it, say.
Nah i'm happy with that. Most of the animals were taken in pairs, the animals good for eating or sacrifice were taken in 7 pairs and i think birds got 7 pairs as well. Could be wrong about that.
If you want the exact quote i can google it for you😉
SW-User
@Qwerty14 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground, 9 there went into the ark to Noah [h]by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah.
The key point here is "birds and everything that creeps on the ground", a dualistic interpretation of [i]every[/i] terrestrial animal (other than the ones specifically named as clean and unclean), going in the ark by twos. That is where this interpretation comes from.
@Pikachu If you wanna call me out you better know your stuff. I don't care if you think I'm trying to defend a story (which btw I consider a fable). But I do care that you don't even know the story yet you wanna act like some expert on the subject. Read it, know it, then comment.
Call you out on what? Do you mean when you announced that you didn't know what apologetics were and i corrected you? What does that have to do with knowing the ark story?
Not sure why you're getting so agro about this. I know the ark story well enough to know the problems with it. Sorry i didn't memorize the quote?
@Pikachu You've never read the Bible. That's the problem. You think you know the story but you don't know the details, just the concept. Take the time, learn the material, then converse.
I have indeed read the bible. On my second way through at the moment. Just finished Esther, thanks very much. Sorry if my inability to recall the exact verse was disappointing for you lol.
Cheer up, mate. You're usually not so spiteful.🙂👍 I'm happy to talk about the ark if you like but i'm done fighting about it.
SW-User
@Pikachu I know my comment was ignored, but I just posted Genesis 7:8-9 which shows that your interpretation is actually not incorrect. It does indeed imply two of every land animal.
@Qwerty14 So, if the flood covered all the earth, the sea level would have to rise a bit over 29,000 feet to cover that bit of land known today as mount everest. When such a flood receded, where did all that water go?
