When I was growing up, I never for a minute considered that evolution might be true. I already “knew” that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, so evolution was simply error. And in my high school biology classes, our teacher made it clear that she had to teach us about evolution by law, despite the fact that she didn’t believe in it herself. I had a handful of friends who believed it, but we never really talked about it. Even if they had, I knew they weren’t “true” Christians, so it was no surprise that they held “inaccurate” ideas.
Many years later, after I had left Christianity, I decided to give evolution another look. I was completely blown away by the amount of evidence I encountered. And so many of the criticisms I had heard against it, that it was “only” a theory, that the fossil record contradicted it, that it had never been observed, that positive mutations were so rare there hadn’t been enough time for this diversity of life to develop, etc were all untrue.
Now as I stated in my last post, I don’t think evolution and religion have to be at odds, so I’m not trying to criticize religion in this post. I think there are many ways for Christians to hold onto their faith while also accepting what science tells us about evolution. So without further ado, here’s the first post in a series that will present some of the evidence for evolution:
Geographic Distribution — Microevolution
When Charles Darwin was a young man, he spent 5 years traveling the world via the HMS Beagle. During the voyage, he managed to spend some time in the Galapagos Islands, about 600 miles off the western coast of South America. One of the things that really struck him was the diversity among the various species of finches there. He identified at least 14 different species, each of which had beaks that were specially suited to their particular food source: ” three species of ground-dwelling seed-eaters; three others living on cactuses and eating seeds; one living in trees and eating seeds; and 7 species of tree-dwelling insect-eaters” [1].
This type of variation is known as adaptive radiation, and it’s a form of microevolution. In case you’re not aware, microevolution is a term for the changes that occur over time within a species — different breeds of dog, variations in height among a population, etc. Almost no one objects to this type of evolution. Macroevolution is a term for the changes that occur over time from one species to another. Quite a number of people object to this version of evolution; however, it’s really no different than microevolution. It just requires a longer period of time.
How did Darwin’s finches evolve once they reached the Galapagos Islands? As they settled among the different islands, they encountered different food sources. Scientists believe the first finches that arrived there were of the ground-dwelling, seed-eating variety. Some of the birds wound up in places where their typical diet was more scarce, but larger, harder seeds were available. As you might imagine, the birds with thicker, stronger beaks could eat that food more easily than the birds with thinner, weaker beaks. They survived better, and simply out-bred the others. Since they were separated from the rest of the finch population, the changes in their physiology became more and more pronounced over time. So there are two factors that are very important in evolution: separated populations and scarce resources.
But the importance of geographic distribution goes much further than this example. Islands are isolated from the other main land areas. Not-so-coincidentally, they also have vastly different plants and animals. Hawaii, for instance, had no land animals until the arrival of humans. There were only birds, bats, and insects living there. Considering how far away Hawaii is from other land masses, it makes sense that if any animals were to migrate there, they would be flying animals. However, if God had created all animals exactly as they are today all at one time, there’s no obvious reason why he would have left Hawaii barren. If it had been teeming with the typical creatures we find elsewhere, that would have been good evidence against evolution.
Australia is also isolated from the other continents, and it provides another fascinating example. Prior to humans, Australia had no placental mammals (dogs, cats, deer, horses, etc). Instead, it contained many species of marsupials that never developed anywhere else in the world. While koalas and kangaroos are some of the most familiar to us, there are other marsupials that developed in Australia to fill niches left empty by the animals most of us are more familiar with. For instance, Australia had no wolves, but Tasmanian tigers developed to fill a similar role. Australia had no cats, but the Thylacine developed to fill that niche. Instead of rats, Australia has bandicoots and bilbies. If God had created all animals just as they are all at one time, why create marsupial versions of animals when there are perfectly good placental animals that could have filled the same roles? And why do it in such an isolated spot? But when you look at it from the view of evolution, it makes much more sense. Marsupials found their way to Australia long, long ago, when Australia, Antarctica, Africa, and South America were all part of a larger continent, Gondwana. When that continent broke up, and Australia began to drift away, the isolation necessary for evolution was achieved. As time went by, more and more changes occurred among marsupials, culminating in the various species we know of today.
But that may be jumping the gun a little. It’s one thing to talk about differences among finches, but one species changing into another is a completely different matter. How could that be possible? We’ll get into that; just follow along.
Finding Truth 
Amazing also, that the converse of that can be grounds for acquittal in a murder trial! “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!”
I recently heard an atheist comedian remark in amazement at a map of the US, as to how many rivers actually formed the borders of so many states! It was as though those rivers had been CREATED specifically for those states!
LikeLike
Mark Twain? Sounds like something he’s say —
LikeLike
Gotta love the Anthropic Principle–no matter how “mathematically improbable” is our current existence, WE EXIST, which means that the universe must be the kind of universe that supports life. But yes, excellent question. I think there are books by Behe or someone saying it is so mathematically impossible for us to be here that it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than to believe in God. Of course, if you try to, as you said, put those numbers to the existence of (a) god(s), well…uh…he exists outside time and space.
Another thing about the numbers. It may be an “urban legend”, but I’ve heard that, supposedly, the numbers don’t line up for a 747 to actually fly–mathematically, it shouldn’t be able to. If that is accurate, then it doesn’t matter how mathematically improbable it is that we are here–here we are.
Anthropic Principle ftw!
LikeLike
(Shhhh! Not too loud! They’ll use the same argument for the existence of their god!)
You may or may not be aware, eSell – speaking of the odds of our being ANYwhere – that for an element as heavy as gold or lead to exist, requires that the constituent atoms to have been through three – count ’em, THREE – SuperNova explosions! Which means that for us to exist on the same planet as gold molecules, we, too, had to have survived three such explosions and re-solidifications, and still managed to overcome the other obstacles mentioned above, to be here, which gives a whole new meaning to, “pull yourself together!” – absolute proof that no matter where you go, there you are.
(Technically, a 747 doesn’t “fly,” it uses its velocity to force the wind to push it up harder than the force of gravity can pull it down – it “glides” on the air, periodically renewing its trajectory as gravity tugs at it – or in the technical terms of Buzz Lightyear, it “falls with style.”)
LikeLike
Speaking of anthropic, and we were, the reason that Gen 1 was written, 400 years after Gen 2, which used to be Gen 1, if that makes sense, is that the authors of what is now Gen 2, envisioned an anthropic god, one who pops down to earth for strolls, “in the cool of the day,” – (certainly a clear warning to all A/C repairmen to mind their P’s and Q’s, as there obviously are none in heaven) – the god of Gen 2, the previous Gen 1, chats with Adam and Eve, and later with Cain, and even acts as the family tailor, sewing clothes for the First Family on his Celestial Singer.
400 years later, the priests, in captivity in Babylon, decided that the Jewish people had been taken captive and their temple destroyed because they had strayed too far from their god, so they wrote a new Genesis, in which a more ethereal, less anthropic god ruled the roost, intending that their Orwellian version should replace the original entirely and that no one should ever know that there had been any other description of their god, but the Redactor, a hundred plus years later than that, said, “No way in hell I’m gonna leave one of these out and upset the holy honcho!” and so left them both in, resulting in the two creation versions we have today.
LikeLike
Since god isn’t the author of confusion, and since we’re commanded to worship him and sing his praises if we want to avoid eternal hell fire, I feel compelled to say, “oh, how marvelous a plan, that he, in his wisdom, would create the world twice just for us… Truly amazing. we worship such a powerful god and book indeed.”
You don’t believe it was from god? Well the man jesus does.
LikeLike
Sadly, from the New Testament, it would seem so, and he also appeared to believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and Moses existed, for which there is absolutely no evidence from biblical archeologists who have spent their entire lives, looking for some. That, for me, negates any possibility that Yeshua – if he, himself, ever existed – was possessed of any degree of divinity.
I don’t mean to disparage YOUR beliefs, William, I’m just elaborating on my own, or lack thereof.
(Interestingly, the concept of “hell fire” only shows up after the Levant is conquered by Alexander and his Greeks, who originated from an area rife with volcanoes, and who brought with them their Greek concept of Hades, with their god, Vulcan, down there in the heat, where all the lava is, forging weapons for Zeus and the rest of the Greek menagerie of gods and godlings.)
LikeLike
I agree with you. I was being a mocker. I mean, I used to be a believer, am no longer so.
It’s a silly argument to use a character from a book as a defense of said book. Circular and silly. It’s like saying, “you don’t believe in Vampires? Well Abraham Lincoln certainly did,” and acting as if that settles it.
And just because an actual historical figure, like Lincoln, is the central character in a book (let’s say “Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter), doesn’t mean the book is factual. So just like mentioning vampires in the same breath as Abraham Lincoln does not make vampires real, neither would mentioning Jesus (a charismatic cult leading carpenter) and the jewish god in the same breath make the divine real.
LikeLike
Well, you got me good – I was taking it really easy on you, because I thought you actually believed what you were saying. I have this really cool set of emoticons, that are actually animated GIFs, and one in particular is a Happy Face whose face turns red, that if I could, I would post it here, but I discovered that WordPress – with which I have TONS of problems – will only display it as HTML – so you’ll just have to imagine a proto-bird with a REALLY red face!
LikeLike
Arch sent me this image last night, which does a great job showing how microevolution could lead to macroevolution. I’ll use it in a future post as well, but I thought I’d also add it here (click for full size):
Thanks arch!
LikeLike
Arch, sorry. Wasn’t trying to mislead, but I can admit when my writings were unclear instead of claiming that I just don’t author confusion.
nate, i’m color blind… which is what I would be saying if it were true. I’ve actually seen that before, although I cannot recall where.
LikeLike
No problem, Nate but before using it again, I would take it into PhotoShop or some such app, and reduce it’s size about 15-20%, so viewers don’t have to scroll, but can still read the print. I should have done that before I sent it too you.
LikeLike
Nate – ignore my above – I was viewing it in my email, on the page, it’s fine just as is. Monday morning came on a Tuesday afternoon this week.
LikeLike
Laurieeee – wherever you are, you anti-evolutionist, you — step away from the goats and take a quick look at this —
(Hard to believe, I know, but the lovely Laurie has actually been a guest on my website! I felt honored.)
LikeLike
See what I mean? See how gullible I am? I was ready to believe that too, William, until I read the second part of your sentence, and even then, I had to read it twice, to be sure.
I need a vacation – I sure will be glad when that bridge I bought in Brooklyn starts paying off —
LikeLike
For Jason, who posted this, above:
You might like to check this out, Jason —
LikeLike
Arch – there you go again posting links to studies which are obviously written by a bunch of biased, unreliable, atheistic scientists!
It reminds me of when you post all that stuff about the big bang proving that there was a beginning of space-time….. oh wait, that wasn’t you I guess – I’m thinking of a whole lot of other people on that one. 😉
LikeLike
*=)) rolling on the floor
LikeLike
That was an animated GIF, that works everywhere except, obviously, WordPress sites. I won’t make that mistake again, but I’ll try anything once.
LikeLike
In refutation of evolution, I have heard many believers ask, “if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys and humans, but no missing links? In other words, if there wasnt enough food to keep the missing link alive, why are there apes or people? an, if there was enough food for apes and people, why wasnt there enough for the missing link?”
But maybe it can be explained with an economic example?
Jim Brown owns a plumbing company in the town of Brownsville. It was a successful plumbing business that had been around 20 years.
One of Jim’s employees, who’d began as an apprentice 20 years ago, and is now on of Jim’s master plumbers, has decided to leave Brown Plumbing and start hi sown plumbing company.
This could go a few ways.
1) they live in a town that is big enough to support two plumbing companies. There’s so much new construction or plumbing problems, that one company cant handle all the work themselves, leaving room to support two competing companies.
2) the town isn’t big enough and there just inst enough business to keep two businesses busy. Well, which company wins? the strongest wins,and in this case, the company who can perform better. As a result, the weaker, less successful company either goes out of business or it tries to move to a new location where there is less competition – if the the weaker company cannot find a place where it can successfully compete, then it goes out of business.
and in order to get a competitive edge one company may need to up its game by offering newer or different services – like carpentry,or something else – whatever it can do to succeed over its rival.
Perhaps the apes and the people werent in direct competition over the resources, but the intermediary species were competing and just lost out – went out of business. Their business (survival) model was bad.
LikeLike
Excellent analogy, William!
LikeLike
I’ve never heard the “if humans came from chimps, why are there still chimps” as an argument over food supply. The question is: if humans evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps? If humans “needed” to evolve (if there was selective pressure), how is it chimps managed to stay? And why aren’t there a dozen varieties of “humanoid” that are somewhere between chimp and human?
That is a wonderful question…until you find out the answer (as I discovered between high school and being 30). The answer is that chimps and humans had a Common Ancestor species (not that humans are descended from chimps directly), and also there HAVE been a number of half ape monkey men: Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, etc, that came up in a linear fashion, not side-by-side. But the folks who ask the question don’t understand enough about the position they’re arguing against (like the fact that speciation takes millions of years) to ask the Correct questions.
LikeLike
good point esell. I realize you’re correct, but i think the same model applies. Why did some variants survive while others diedif they existed around the same time and in the same places? It has to do with survivability.
They would be competing for resources, whether food or water or whatever else. The stronger would survive – the one with the edge.
That edge could be camouflage,speed, strength, stamina, or being hungry for something that nothing else is, or intelligence, etc. When multiple species compete for something, the one with a stronger trait will win out – passing on his genes, with the other dying out, slowly extincting their genes.
LikeLike
One of the major difficulties many people have ( me included) with trying to grasp the concept evolution is the time frame involved.
Merely reading a sentence such as “The dinosaurs died out approximately 60 million years ago and ruled the earth for several hundred million years” are figures almost impossible to get to grips with, especially when we consider that modern humans have been around for a minuscule fraction of this little time.
This is maybe why it is easier for YEC’s to come to terms with 6000 years than billions.
LikeLike
Ark, your point is well made about the millions and millions of years it takes for changes to take place. A good friend of mine doesn’t believe in evolution because he thinks we would be able to see changes today. *shaking head*
LikeLike