# What would it take to make you believe in evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2000, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959 "2000-09-21T04:11:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PaulYeah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e36b37/32.png) [@PaulYeah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulYeah)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/1 "2000-09-21T04:11:34Z")
This question is obviously one I’m posing to people who deny evolution. What hypothetical evidence can you imagine that would cause you to conclude that evolution takes place on the planet Earth? # PaulYeah A plan is just a list of things that go wrong. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/2 "2000-09-21T04:23:20Z")
1. And God spake unto his desolate plane and said, “Let there be genes,” and there were genes. 2. “Let there be random mutations,” and there were random mutations 3. “Let Earth be forever changing,” and the Earth was forever changing 4. “Let those creatures who are not comfortable in their home lay dead before they shall multiply,” and it was so. -The lost chapter of Genesis. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/3 "2000-09-21T13:42:06Z")
Sentience. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/4 "2000-09-21T14:06:58Z")
I assume this question is directed at those who are actually creationists - that is people who claim to have some sort of proof against evolution. From the perspective of someone who is not so into the subject, has looked a little into evolution, wasn’t impressed by its conclusiveness and decided to accept the Biblical acount, it obviously a pointless question. But even from a scientific perspective, what is the point of the question? Suppose there’s nothing that can possibly prove the theory? What of it? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/5 "2000-09-21T15:04:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **. . . From the perspective of someone who . . . has looked a little into evolution . . .** :rolleyes: 'nuff said (emphasis mine). > [@](#): > > _continued_ > **. . . Suppose there’s nothing that can possibly prove the theory? . . .** You make the common mistake of confusing the word “theory” with the word “hypothesis.” Evolution _has_ been proven, with a great deal more physical evidence (fossils, Galapagos finches, experiments with guppies, increasing number of African elephants being born without tusks–which used to be much rarer–due to poachers’ elimination of many tusked males from the gene pool, etc.) than many other scientific theories (e.g., relativity) that you probably have no problem with. If you looked more than “a little” into it, you’d have more information to base your conclusions on. From the [Online Medical Dictionary](http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?action=Home&query=): > [@](#): > > **theory** > In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. _In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments._ Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws. (Emphasis mine.) ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/6 "2000-09-21T15:22:23Z")
Lissener, Do you understand the OP? It does not seem like it. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/7 "2000-09-21T15:28:30Z")
? :blink: ? :blink: ? The OP doesn’t have an answer, was my point. Evolution _has_ been proven; any debate that continues is simply about the mechanism that drives it, with Natural Selection way out in front on that one. Creationists are not engaged in a debate, but in denial, and are not looking for proof. A creationist wouldn’t recognize proof if it bought them a drink, took them home, and sodomized them. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/8 "2000-09-21T15:42:46Z")
In other words, no. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/9 "2000-09-21T16:29:18Z")
IzzyR, how about taking a stab at answering the question in the OP first instead of asking your own questions. I, for one, would be very interested in your point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Bad-Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@Bad-Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad-Mojo)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/10 "2000-09-21T16:37:40Z")
lissener, _you_ make the common mistake of confusing Evolution with Adaptation. Adaptation is one species changing it’s characteristicts to conform to it’s environment. Evolution is one species changing into a completely different one. Of all of the millions of species on this planet that have adapted over the years, not a single piece of evidence has _ever_ been uncovered that links one species to the emergence of another. Hence the term “missing link”. Show me one of those, and I’ll be convinced. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/11 "2000-09-21T16:45:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hardcore \* > \*\*IzzyR, how about taking a stab at answering the question in the OP first instead of asking your own questions. I, for one, would be very interested in your point of view. \*\* You have already asked me this question [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=643659#post643659). I responded that I don’t know [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=644031#post644031). You disapproved of my response [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=646540#post646540). What’s left? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/12 "2000-09-21T16:49:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Hence the term “missing link”. Show me one of those, and I’ll be convinced. No you won’t. Like most creationists, if someone produces “missing link” fossil B between fossil A and fossil C, you’ll merely claim that there are now “missing links” between A and B, and between B and C. ---
**Author:** ![Mauve\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@Mauve\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mauve_Dog)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/13 "2000-09-21T16:57:38Z")
And you, **Bad-Mojo** , are confusing evolution with speciation. Evolution is, in Darwin’s words, ‘descent with modification,’ which is essentially what **lissener** said. Speciation is but one possible result of evolution, adaptation is another. Also, the term ‘missing link’ is very misleading and only serves to perpetuate misunderstanding about how evolution works. Species transformations are, ultimately, more of a continuum rather than a quantum leap. Exactly when one species begets another is almost impossible to determine. Thus, the idea of a ‘missing link’ is a false one. We see discreet species in the fossil record more because that’s how fossilization works than because that’s how evolution works. ---
**Author:** ![Bad-Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@Bad-Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad-Mojo)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/14 "2000-09-21T16:57:45Z")
> [@](#): > > No you won’t. Like most creationists, if someone produces “missing link” fossil B between fossil A and fossil C, you’ll merely claim that there are now “missing links” between A and B, and between B and C. Ah, pldennison… There you go assuming that I’m a creationist. The problem is, nobody has ever produced such a link. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/15 "2000-09-21T17:02:26Z")
OK, how about this one. A - small two legged dinosaurs B - small two legged dinosaurs with long fingers and feathers on their arms (archaeopterix) C - birds Or how about this - A - tiny horse-like creatures, long long ago B - bigger horse-like creatures, long ago C - modern horses ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/16 "2000-09-21T17:03:10Z")
**Mojo** , I don’t get you. You want a walking, talking Eohippus to jump in front of you with a big hat that reads “Look at me, I’m a missing link”? There is not such thing as a “missing link.” It’s a fallacy. Evolution, even punk eek, is a process. Can you point out to me the missing link between infancy and adulthood? ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/17 "2000-09-21T17:06:04Z")
IzzyR, I fully remember our previous discussions and see no need to regurgitate it. And I most certainly did _ **not** _ disapprove of the fact that you don’t know what evidence would convince you. I _ **did** _, however, challenge you to research the issue and try to determine the answer. So I guess you could say I am still interested to know if you have put enough thought into the topic to ascertain what would amount to sufficient convincing evidence for you. ---
**Author:** ![Mauve\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@Mauve\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mauve_Dog)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/18 "2000-09-21T17:07:48Z")
[nitpick / hijack] _Eohippus_ is no longer the valid name for the critter in question. Its proper name (because of seniority rules) is _Hyracotherium_. [/nitpick / hijack] ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/19 "2000-09-21T17:10:24Z")
Bad mojo, _you_ make the common mistake (unique to creationists, BTW) of confusing “evolution” with “speciation.” (Both your definitions are off: an organism doesn’t “change it’s characteristics to conform”: that’s Lamarckianism. And the bit about its environment: that’s natural selection, not evolution.) You also exhibit ignorance of the meaning of the unscientific term “missing link.” The “missing link” is a red herring invented by denialists (my new word; now I don’t ever have to use the word “creationists” again!). Speciation is such a gradual process that no individual organism can, even in theory, be a “missing link.” The “missing link” of legend is a _third_ primate species to bridge the gap in the fossil record between apes and humans. Many, many species are so closely related to other members of their genus that there’s some doubt that they _are_ separate species, let alone “linked” in the “missing,” apocryphal sense of that word as misused by denialists. The concept of _species_ is nothing more than an artifact of _language_. “Species” don’t exist in nature: animals just reproduce and accumulate the genetic idiosyncrasies of their parents, and with geographical isolation leading to genetic isolation, one group gradually becomes different from another group. We humans see a difference between a lion and a tiger, so we impose upon them the linguistic convenience of a “species.” So the “proof” that you’re looking for, Bad-Mojo, is a fantasy based on ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Bad-Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@Bad-Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad-Mojo)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959/20 "2000-09-21T17:11:22Z")
Little horses to big horses, etc. It’s still a horse. It’s not an elephant. The concept of a species adapting is very acceptable. The idea of a fish evolving into a moose is not. I just can’t swallow the concept that every creature can be traced back like a tree to common roots. There are lots of straight lines, but no branches. Does that explanation make sense? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-it-take-to-make-you-believe-in-evolution/33959.md?page=2)