?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms

by Guest with Questions 125 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>I appriciate your illustration, but both the best and worst sighted birds remain birds throughout this whole process.

  In the very last iteration of change (getting slightly better sight), that's true. But what if the poor-sighted population finds that life on the ground is better for them? They can't spot their food before the better-sighted ones do, so they just stay on the ground and grab whatever's handy. They would all be one type of bird at first, just some going to the ground more often. But those on the ground would mate with each other, and those in the trees would mate with each other. More and more, the ground dwellers would stay there. They would develop stronger legs, more vicious beaks (for defense), and be more aggressive. (Maybe).

  In time, these would become two different species. Granted, they're still birds. But they've changed. How many more changes would it take before the bird wasn't a bird in any accepted sense?

  In "getting" evolution, the easy part is seeing the small changes, like eye-sight. The hard part is understanding that these small changes can accumulate until the thing you end up with is almost nothing like the thing you started with. Genetics may end up the only clue to tie one to the other.

  Natural selection is driven by the environment. Split a population over two different environments and they can't help but adapt to them. Split again, and again... the changes add up.

  Dave
• 

  Warlock

  In the very last iteration of change (getting slightly better sight), that's true. But what if the poor-sighted population finds that life on the ground is better for them? They can't spot their food before the better-sighted ones do, so they just stay on the ground and grab whatever's handy. They would all be one type of bird at first, just some going to the ground more often. But those on the ground would mate with each other, and those in the trees would mate with each other. More and more, the ground dwellers would stay there. They would develop stronger legs, more vicious beaks (for defense), and be more aggressive. (Maybe).

  In time, these would become two different species. Granted, they're still birds. But they've changed. How many more changes would it take before the bird wasn't a bird in any accepted sense?

  In "getting" evolution, the easy part is seeing the small changes, like eye-sight. The hard part is understanding that these small changes can accumulate until the thing you end up with is almost nothing like the thing you started with. Genetics may end up the only clue to tie one to the other.

  Natural selection is driven by the environment. Split a population over two different environments and they can't help but adapt to them. Split again, and again... the changes add up.

  Dave

  I agree 100% with the highlighted areas. Originally I was going to bring this up.

  So if we had all these changes occur in birds, then the birds with the most recent change, or changes, or let's say the birds that we would consider to be in the "transition" phase would be around for us to see?

  If so, and I'm not trying to trick, or b.s. you, where is that species when it comes to man? This is what it comes down to, man, because that is what we are trying to determine. Is man a created being or not?

  There is this giant leap in every area when you compare man to monkey, and if we did come from monkeys and we are just a higher form of monkey, where are these "transitional" species that lead from them to us?

  Warlock
• 

  B_Deserter

  Part of understanding evolution is not listening to creationists who incorrectly define it.
  
  1. Evolution has no more chance involved than the wind blowing from the west. Natural selection is the OPPOSITE of chance. Many species do not survive because their environment changes, and they are no longer suited to survive in it. A good example is the varying hue of skin color in human beings. Native people are darker in areas where they experience more sunlight. This prevents the body from getting too much UV radiation. When Homo Habilis became Homo Ergaster, he likely lost much of his hair, exposing his lighter-colored skin. Of course, not everyone is born with the exact same shade of skin, so the darker H. Ergaster people were able to survive longer in the hot sun, giving them more time and opportunity to reproduce. Eventually, the light-skinned Hominids were bred out of the population in favor of the dark-skinned. Just the opposite happened when Homo Erectus migrated to Europe. Sunlight was far more scarce, and humans need the reaction of sunlight with Vitamin D to produce calcium. A dark-skinned person living in northern europe would have weaker muscles and bones than a light-skinned person. Thus, the stronger light-skinned population outbred the weaker dark-skinned.
  
  2. Many creationists will state about evolution "well, it's just a theory, so it hasn't been proven." This is based on a misunderstanding of the words "theory" and "fact" in a scientific context. You may also want to note that Gravity is also a theory but you don't see anti-gravitationists running around saying "Its just the THEORY!!!," trying to get their alternative hypothesis of intelligent everything-is-pulled-to-earth-by-invisible-faeries to have equal time with gravity in the science classroom. In the scientific world, a theory is a framework to which facts are applied. If you throw a ball up, gravity will pull it back to the ground, that is a fact. HOW gravity pulls it down to the ground is the theory part, which is still being debated today. Likewise, many animals today have common ancestors, fossil evidence proves this to be a fact. The collection of these facts for the last 150 years have been pulled together in a theory called evolution. Again, HOW evolution occurred is continuously being debated, that is the theory part.
  
  3. The false dichotomy argument is also very common. It goes something like this: if creationists can make it seem that evolution is false, then they win by default, even without having to prove one bit of their belief (and they can't) at all. A popular spin on this is "scientist disagree, therefore, we are right." Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The belief that an invisible magician the sky just waved his hands one week and *poof* everything was here qualifies as an extraordinary claim. To make evolution seem false, they will often misquote scientists and point out that they disagree with each other on evolution. Duh! It's science! Science is all about disagreeing, providing supporting evidence, and, if that evidence is sound, the rest of the scientific community accepts it. The only debates going on in science about evolution are HOW it occurred; almost all scientists are in agreement that it at least DID occur. I also would like to point out that creationists disagree with how creation occurred. Some believe in literal 24-hour-days. Others believe the length of a day in Genesis could be thousands, even millions of years. Still, others believe God created life by means of evolution. Which is it creationists? If you guys disagree so much, maybe your belief isn't so true after all! (Note: I'm being sarcastic, pointing out the faulty logic creationists uses against evolution).
  
  I liken the creation/evolution debate to a jigsaw puzzle that no longer has a box (so you can't see what it's supposed to be) that is being put together by Science, with Creationism looking on. When science started, Creationism had already decided that the picture the puzzle creates is a unicorn. As the puzzle pieces become assembled, Science said "I think you're wrong, it looks like this puzzle is shaping up to be a rhinoceros, not a unicorn." Creationism snapped, "You must have an ulterior motive to believe it's a rhinoceros, you just don't want to be accountable to the unicorn once the puzzle is complete! You can't PROVE it's NOT a unicorn yet!" "Okay, that's fine, let's just keep putting the puzzle together and we'll be able to tell for sure," science responded. 150 years later (it's a BIG puzzle), science has completed much of it. The more and more pieces it places together, the more and more the puzzle is beginning to look like a rhinoceros. Livid at the possibility of being wrong, Creationism scrutinizes every piece science places. When science gets a piece wrong, it shrieks "SEE!!! You put the piece in the wrong place! It IS a unicorn after all!" Science just shrugs, finds the right spot for it, and continues on.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>There is this giant leap in every area when you compare man to monkey, and if we did come from monkeys and we are just a higher form of monkey, where are these "transitional" species that lead from them to us?

  They've all died off. (Or so we assume -- "Bigfoot", anyone? ;-) )

  Our extinct ancestors and those that branched off of our same tree have left fossils and other evidence of their existence.

  You aren't going to see one species turning into another before your eyes, let alone a fish turn into a bird. But then, you aren't going to see the Grand Canyon carved out over a weekend, either. We can't see it happen, but we can piece together the evidence available and see how it happened.

  You can find these evidences and why they are considered our ancestors all over the web. If you have any trouble locating them, please let me know and I'll dig something up.

  Dave
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Warlock:

  Please don't take this as an insult, but you believe in ghosts, which we can't see, but you won't believe in evolution because you can't observe a bird morph into another species in your lifetime? Please explain the discrepancy.
• 

  AlanF

  It's obvious that you can't answer my questions, Warlock.

  It's obvious why you can't answer my questions. If you did, you'd have to abandon your emotionally derived beliefs. You can't bring yourself to take the first step, much like a dyed-in-the-wool JW can rarely bring himself to take the first step of questioning his belief in JW leaders.

  AlanF
• 

  Warlock

  They've all died off.

  But if they were the transition and were closer to man than the current species, namely monkeys, they should be alive. Survival of the fittest and all that.

  Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer, even though I don't think I'll ever stop believing in God.

  I will look up the fossils, though.

  Warlock
• 

  AlanF

  RAF wrote:

  :: What would you take as proof?

  : No questions left aside

  You'll never have proof of anything, then.

  But equally, you'll never have proof of a creator.

  : The thing is why should I stop questioning when there is still no proof - I mean why should I buy the whole thing?

  You shouldn't. However, weight of evidence is the key to at least provisional acceptance of any idea, including what are generally accepted as scientific facts. As paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

  In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

  : Why do you buy the whole thing for instance?

  Weight of positive evidence. And the great deal of evidence that makes no sense in terms of a super-intelligent creator.

  : Do you think that we are a Chimp descendant?

  No. I think that mankind and chimps are descendants of a common apelike ancestor that lived 7-8 million years ago. But I'm open to revision, since new data can come along at any time.

  : Why an Ape more than a PIG?

  Body structure, behavior and genetics. Body structure is obvious. Chimps, gorillas and orangutans display some behaviors remarkably like humans, far more so than pigs. Genetically, modern apes and man have DNA that's at least 95% the same, whereas pig DNA is a good deal more different (you can find more information on this with as much effort as I can).

  : When you only have to crumble the genomes to get a human being (not sure I'm clear here but I think you get what I mean).

  I have no idea what you mean.

  : And the real question is why would anyone really want to force me (or anyone) to believe the whole thing ...

  Is anyone forcing you to believe anything? Now, in a cult like the JWs, enforcement of belief is de rigeur. But not in normal human endeavors.

  : What does it change in other people lives? Is it not enough to give an opinion and let people make their own opinion? I love to debate but really most of the time it turns into name calling which are not arguments but some kind of intimidation and influence on weak minds I don't want to get into this game but it happens that I really feel like but then it wouldn't satisfy me to win or to lose this way since most of the time there is nothing to lose or win in this anyway.

  Debate about important topics tends to generate heated discussion. My personal observation is that the majority of people who don't accept solid scientific notions like evolution is that they have few facts or good arguments to back them up, and so they quickly resort to name-calling when backed into a corner, or they run away from discussion, which frustrates those willing to debate, or they even threaten other debaters with destruction from God. Most often, it's only after those things occur that more scientifically inclined people return the favor.

  AlanF
• 

  Little Drummer Boy

  Hi Warlock

  In my last post, I was trying to explain this very thing you just commented on. You can't see the "transitional" species because you are looking in the wrong place, for lack of a better term. There is no "transitional" species as you are imagining. We are all just one very long chain of genetics that sometimes branches off into directions that we, have decided counts as different species. Since humans only live for a short time and not millions of years, our ancestors that were genetically different enough from us to not be counted as being of the same species are not alive today with us for us to talk to. But, if you were living back tens of thousands of years ago, you could have had a face to face conversation with a neaderthal, which branched off from the species that we either branched off of or became (depending on your perspective). That there are not 2 or more inteligent species that look "humanish" today, simply means that the other genetic lines were not successful and died out, leaving only us.

  edit to say:

  In other words, species don't "pop" into existence from one species to the next. Gack...I completely lost my train of thought. Dang it!

  On a side note, I am immensly frustrated at the moment by my lack of ability to properly express what I am trying to say. All this information is up in my brain and I can't get it into words the way I want to. Sigh...
• 

  AlanF

  B_Deserter wrote:

  : I liken the creation/evolution debate to a jigsaw puzzle that no longer has a box . . . that is being put together by Science, with Creationism looking on. . .

  Excellent illustration!

  AlanF