# Former Creationists - what made you embrace evolution ?



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

AliceWonder said:


> Scientists agree on the theory, they don't all agree on some of the results of the theory.


Not really. They have different conflicting ideas about abiogenesis, how important characteristics of animals evolved like milk glands, on macro and micro evo and the extent that evolution can reach, the order of some animal family trees, how accurate their methods of dating are, the various ideas of hominid species and where they connect, and so on.
Tho you are right that they also don't agree with eachother on the result of the theory as well.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Not really. They have different conflicting ideas about abiogenesis, how important characteristics of animals evolved like milk glands, on macro and micro evo and the extent that evolution can reach, the order of some animal family trees, how accurate their methods of dating are, the various ideas of hominid species and where they connect, and so on.
> Tho you are right that they also don't agree with eachother on the result of the theory as well.


That doesn't mean they don't agree that Evolution is a fact. It's not easy to trace the origin and development of species since it's something that has happened in the past, so it's reasonable they have conflicting opinions on the specifics.


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

They know we got from A to B.

Whether we traveled in a straight line, a jagged lines, which jagged line, etc. is where the disputes are.

As we do more research, we start to be able to make predictions.

For example, we know venom in snakes is modified stomach bile. It also appears to have only evolved once, yet is present in families that are distinctly different from each other, suggesting a common ancestor of snakes was venomous.

If that were the case, and non-venomous snakes lost their venom, then we should find evidence in snakes that are non-venomous. Guess what, we do. Gartersnakes for example, we find evidence of their venomous past in their saliva. The itching that we sometimes feel when they bite us use to be attributed to toxins on toads and other things they ate, but now we know it is a leftover from their venomous past.

And if their common ancestor was venomous, then it seems likely that we would find venom in their closest lizard relatives. Guess what, we do - varanids have venom in their saliva and it is related to snake venom.

When scientists of one hypothesis see the evidence that another hypothesis is better, it may take some convincing but they switch, because what they are after is finding the truth through objective research, not believing a truth because a holy book declared it and rejecting anything that opposes it.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> That doesn't mean they don't agree that Evolution is a fact. It's not easy to trace the origin and development of species since it's something that has happened in the past, so it's reasonable they have conflicting opinions on the specifics.


Still, many scientists even disagree on whether or not evolution as a whole is fact as well, let alone all the specific details they are in disagreement over. There are that many things they are unsure about, or even have no idea how it happened, that it's easy to see why so many aren't comfortable with just accepting evolution as a whole.


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

I think there is some confusion about what evolution is.

When a population has adapted to new circumstances in such a way that reversion to former circumstances would stimulate *adapting to former conditions in a new way*, then evolution has occurred. Speciation may or may not have occurred, but evolution has because the population has changed, evolved. That is not disputed by any scientist inside or outside of biology that I am aware of, even YEC accept that - that's what they call micro evolution. Most scientists just call it evolution.

As far as what constitutes a species, there is a lot of debate but species is a human construct that allows us to organize and classify populations so that we can have a commonly understood reference when talking about them.

But one thing scientists don't dispute, regardless of how you define species, is that when you have several populations that are distinct species yet closely related - they have a common ancestor, meaning they come from a common population that was one species.

The Sierra Gartersnake, the Giant Gartersnake, and the Aquatic gartersnake are so closely related they use to be considered one species - just different subspecies. Now we know that nature selects against the hybrids that occur, limiting gene flow between them, so they are different evolutionary paths and thus are considered distinct populations and distinct species.

But at one point in history they were the same species, the same population, but that population forked.

Likewise, going even further back, all gartersnakes in the genus thamnophis even further back have a common ancestor - they came from one population, one species.

Going even further back, the genus Thamnophis and Nerodia are closely related and have a common ancestor.

And eventually it goes back to the common ancestor of all life on earth. It appears life only evolved once here.

The phylogenic tree - how all species are related back to that common ancestor is of much debate but most scientists don't dispute there was a common ancestor, just the path that the tree of life took.

We may not know the exact path that certain complex organs took to evolve and there are disputes, but most scientists accept that they did even if we have not figured out the path.

Yes, there are a lot of disagreements on those particulars, just as there are a lot of disagreements on particulars of how the Bible is to be interpreted. Does that in your mind invalidate the Bible?


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Still, many scientists even disagree on whether or not evolution as a whole is fact as well, let alone all the specific details they are in disagreement over. There are that many things they are unsure about, or even have no idea how it happened, that it's easy to see why so many aren't comfortable with just accepting evolution as a whole.


Look I just gave you the stats. You're creating a controversy that is not even there. And you just ignore posts that don't comform to your world.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)




----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Still, many scientists even disagree on whether or not evolution as a whole is fact as well, let alone all the specific details they are in disagreement over. There are that many things they are unsure about, or even have no idea how it happened, that it's easy to see why so many aren't comfortable with just accepting evolution as a whole.


Well, Scientists can disagree on evolution being a quasi-fact but they'll immediately pay a price. They'll pay the price of ill-conceived laughter.
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. We are still really clueless when it comes to abiogenesis. It's a very exciting field though and I'm sure that one day we'll have a theory for that as well.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Morfinyon said:


> Well, Scientists can disagree on evolution being a quasi-fact but they'll immediately pay a price. They'll pay the price of ill-conceived laughter.
> Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. We are still really clueless when it comes to abiogenesis. It's a very exciting field though and I'm sure that one day we'll have a theory for that as well.


Yes, people do like to mock, regardless of the reality of the situation. No matter what there has always been trolls mocking each side, which doesn't do anybody any good. It takes courage to stand up for something when you know you will be mocked, but many great men and women of science have done just that throughout history, and we have benefited from their courage.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@He's a Superhero!

Do you really want the opening of Genesis taught in science classes?


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Yes, people do like to mock, regardless of the reality of the situation. No matter what there has always been trolls mocking each side, which doesn't do anybody any good. It takes courage to stand up for something when you know you will be mocked, but many great men and women of science have done just that throughout history, and we have benefited from their courage.


In these cases they generally had evidence though


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Still, many scientists even disagree on whether or not evolution as a whole is fact as well, let alone all the specific details they are in disagreement over. There are that many things they are unsure about, or even have no idea how it happened, that it's easy to see why so many aren't comfortable with just accepting evolution as a whole.


Well, do you have any sources about scientists in the field who disagree with evolution? If anything, I'm curious.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Morfinyon said:


> In these cases they generally had evidence though


Indeed. It's weird how something can be so controversial when it is so wanting of evidence.



Red Panda said:


> Well, do you have any sources about scientists in the field who disagree with evolution? If anything, I'm curious.


Sorry, but I don't know your intention?

I have posted some links in this thread already as well.


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Indeed. It's weird how something can be so controversial when it is so wanting of evidence.


What is wanting of evidence?
There is probably more evidence for evolution than for any other theory.
Evolution has no flaws either. The fact that we can use artifical selection to change species and even create new species kind of supports evolution also.


----------



## lightwing (Feb 17, 2013)

AliceWonder said:


> It's an easy trap to fall into.


Just like the IKEA effect.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

I don't think I believe in creationism anymore because evolution makes more sense but I haven't really put much thought into it. I think trying to figure out what happened when no one was actually there to see it is a fruitless endeavour. There's no wonder no one can agree on what really happened. That being said, evolution makes more sense to me because everywhere else in nature you see expansion and growth.. such as expansion of the Universe or expansion of awareness in the human psyche. I don't like the word 'evolution' in itself. I think it's a misguided understanding. So I use the term expansion as a replacement. I could believe the intricacy of our biology is expanding as a result of natural experimentation and mutation, creating an ever 'advanced' race, or races. But as far as the actual human origin goes, my own inclination is to wonder if extraterrestrial species had a hand in our development.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> @_He's a Superhero!_
> 
> Do you really want the opening of Genesis taught in science classes?


When it comes to kids, Genesis should be taught in religious studies, where it belongs. And science shouldn't teach anything that's not factual and already proven. Evolution as an explanation for the origin of humanity isn't really proven. It's still just a theory.


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

ScarlettHayden said:


> When it comes to kids, Genesis should be taught in religious studies, where it belongs. And science shouldn't teach anything that's not factual and already proven. Evolution as an explanation for the origin of humanity isn't really proven. It's still just a theory.


Evolution is a theory and a fact.
It just can't explain the origin of life itself (abiogenesis) and I agree that they shouldn't teach one specific hypothesis for that in science classes (my biology teacher in 8th grade taught us that lightning shit lol)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

He's a Superhero! said:


> Sorry, but I don't know your intention?
> 
> I have posted some links in this thread already as well.


The links you posted are of people who disagree with Evolution because they believe in Creation. That's not equivalent to saying the scientific community has disagreements on Evolution based on scientific evidence. These people do not have scientific evidence or theories to use as a counter-argument, just their faith. Which of course is not nearly enough to discredit Evolution, especially since we have observed it happen, as I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

ScarlettHayden said:


> When it comes to kids, Genesis should be taught in religious studies, where it belongs. And science shouldn't teach anything that's not factual and already proven. Evolution as an explanation for the origin of humanity isn't really proven. It's still just a theory.


I have explained in a previous post the difference between "scientific theory" and the word "theory" we use in common speech. Scientific theory means it's a fact.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

It's getting late and am tired, so may not be able to reply to everything right now.



Snow Leopard said:


> Macroevolution doesn't have to conflict with Christianity or other Abrahamic religions, so I don't understand why many religious people make a big deal out of denying macroevolution.


That's not what worries a lot of people...it's more about the accuracy of macro evo. If something doesn't fully work then we shouldn't be surprised that not everyone is willing to accept it.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

He's a Superhero! said:


> If something doesn't fully work then we shouldn't be surprised that not everyone is willing to accept it.


It is hard to know what you are talking about exactly. Macroevolution theory has passed the tests we have been able to throw at it so far and has survived as a field of study. So I'd say it has worked so far. If you can design an experiment to show that it does not work, I'd love to see it.


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

When I was a creationist, the common arguments were "missing links" between species - apparently ignorant that large numbers of them have been found, and complexity of organs like the eye - an inability to see how a specialized complex organ could evolve over time - unaware that research has answered that question, with considerable evidence.

Unfortunately often that evidence is difficult to understand if you are not educated in biology, so it is often dismissed.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

The missing links argument is called God of The Gaps and is based on the informal fallacy argument from ignorance. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

He's a Superhero! said:


> That's not what worries a lot of people...it's more about the accuracy of macro evo. If something doesn't fully work then we shouldn't be surprised that not everyone is willing to accept it.


The only people that worries are Fundamentalist Christians including Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Bring us some evidence that non -christians are not excepting of the fact and theory of evolution.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Snow Leopard said:


> It is hard to know what you are talking about exactly. Macroevolution theory has passed the tests we have been able to throw at it so far and has survived as a field of study. So I'd say it has worked so far. If you can design an experiment to show that it does not work, I'd love to see it.


I'm trying to understand you as well, but I cannot tell if you are being coy at all via reading your typing. As for designing an experiment, I don't need to, as multiple tests have already been designed for this and macro evo simply didn't pass, even tho it had every reason to as well as an abundance of time - in fact one test shows the equivalent of the timeline of the hominid species (many millions of years), but for bacteria. (Comparing the breeding capability of bacteria and comparing that to humans, bacteria makes an ideal candidate for a test, as they can have enough generations pass within much shorter time periods, so instead of literally waiting millions of years you only have to wait just a few years if not less than a single year to see progress).


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

bacteria evolves in the lab with some frequency.

I think you are under the impression that evolution always means from simpler to more complex. That isn't the case. Evolution does not care about the complexity of the end result, only if it has a survival advantage.

Sometimes that advantage is more complex, but usually it is just different.

The incredible number of lower life forms vs higher life forms indicates that evolution to increased complexity is not the norm. It happens but is not the norm.

Small changes in DNA can have an incredible impact. For example, black wolves that are only found in North America - that mutation appears to have happened with Domestic Dogs and entered north american wolves through introgression via a hybridization about 15,000 years.

The gene that results in the black coat is a very minor change to a single gene that removes 3 nucleotides from the sequence.

That small minor mutation has a major effect, it causes melanism (the black coat) and also effects the immune system.

Black is so prevalent in domestic dogs because humans select for it. Why nature selected for it in wolves in North America is not known, but it clearly has - the suspicion since the gene is a gene that effects the immune system is that it gives these wolves an immune advantage to a disease common in the parts of north america where the gene is prevalent.

That's how evolution works. Small mutations (copying errors) to a gene can result in significant change. Usually those changes are negative, resulting in nature selecting against the mutation but sometimes they are positive, resulting in nature selecting for the mutation. The net result is negative mutations are removed from the gene pool while positive mutations are retained, and that is how a species can become more complex through random change.

That's also why genetic diseases tend to be recessive nature. When a negative mutation is dominant, nature can select against it right away and remove it. But when it is recessive, it is only expressed when both parents carry it and then - assuming it is not expressed in either parent - only a quarter of the young will express it (but half the young will carry it without expressing it)

What you are calling macro evolution is simply a cumulative build-up of these minor genetic mutations over time. Sometimes those cumulative build-ups lead to things like eyes and livers and sometimes they do not.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

He's a Superhero! said:


> I'm trying to understand you as well, but I cannot tell if you are being coy at all via reading your typing. As for designing an experiment, I don't need to, as multiple tests have already been designed for this and macro evo simply didn't pass, even tho it had every reason to as well as an abundance of time - in fact one test shows the equivalent of the timeline of the hominid species (many millions of years), but for bacteria. (Comparing the breeding capability of bacteria and comparing that to humans, bacteria makes an ideal candidate for a test, as they can have enough generations pass within much shorter time periods, so instead of literally waiting millions of years you only have to wait just a few years if not less than a single year to see progress).


Which experiments are you talking about?

Bacteria have demonstrated an amazing ability to evolve to cope with extreme artificial environments, such as inside nuclear fission reactors and out in space!


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

God created the earth, therefore, it and everything on it are perfect. The world changes, therefore what is on the earth must change as well. If nothing on the earth changed, it would all die off. As a christian, I find creationism offensive because it insults God's intelligence.


----------



## AliceWonder (Dec 11, 2014)

For an example of macro evolution, the evolution of the lungs from a swim bladder is fairly well documented in the fossil record, with some lineages still present that use intermediary versions to breathe oxygen through the swim bladder.


----------

