I'm having trouble believing in evolution

I want to believe evolution is real but I’m having two major problems

  1. All the genetic evidence (from what I know of it) could be explained by common design

  2. All the fossils used for evidence could just be fossils of similar now extinct species

Is there anyway to disprove either of my problems

I think that is fine. Evolution is not something you “believe” in. It takes and asks for no faith. It is just a concept that that you feel the evidence supports.
Most here feel the evidence supports it, and can provide reasons as to why. Regarding your “problems”, first I would suggest you look at the genetics more closely, as it is really one of the strongest arguments for common descent. It essentially confirms (with a few surprises here and there) what evolution had predicted.
As to the fossils, yep, most are extinct, as you would suspect with evolution. You might wonder why there are no fossils of many modern species mixed with them, however. Maybe they evolved?

1 Like

I’m glad you asked, @ask217771.

Assuming you are totally bored with geology and physics, which demonstrate by multiple different methods that the Earth is 5 billion years old (not 5,000 years) … the unique pattern of fossils we find on Earth are completely impossible to produce from a world flood scenario 5,000 years ago.

I would reconsider the issue of geology and physics… it really does simplify matters. But let’s continue on to review your questions about fossils and extinct species:

If we look at the overall systematic pattern of fossils, we discover certain grand truths:

  1. Fossils of Large fossils and large mammals are never found together. The Evolutionary hypothesis is that the larger a mammal becomes, the easier it is for carnivore dinosaurs to find them and eat them. So during the age of dinosaurs, only the smallest of mammals could survive extinction.

  2. Fossils of aquatic mammals (any size) and aquatic dinosaurs (any size) are never found together. The Evolutionary hypothesis is that before aquatic mammals could evolve, we had to first have mammals, and especially the larger ones that could survive in an aquatic environment filled with fish. So invariably, when we find a fossil of an aquatic mammal, it is from millions of years after the extinction of all dinosaurs, let alone aquatic dinosaurs.

  3. Using the same logic as (2), the existence of large terrestrial mammals (Elephants, Giraffes, Rhino’s etc) was not possible until the large dinosaur predators were gone. So whenever we find a large mammal, invariably it is from millions of years after the extinction of dinosaurs.

  4. Then we have the Australian populations of mammals which until relatively recently, were all marsupials (the placental mammals that once lived there went extinct long ago). Apparently the marsupials in Australia, being isolated from placental evolution going on in the rest of the world, was protected from competition from the more robust placental mammals. And in the rest of the planet, only a handful of marsupials were able to compete against the other mammals (like the possum).

  5. The YEC explanation for this pattern (Australian Marsupials vs. Placentals beyond Australia) does not exist. YEC’s would essentially have to propose the following sequence:

a) The Great Flood kills all animals in Australia and elsewhere.
b) When the animals are released from the Ark, the marsupial mammals (even the slow ones) manage to travel directly to Australia before it separates from the main continent…
c) … while the placental mammals completely ignore Australia for generations.

This, of course, is an impossible scenario.

I think you need to split out the two types of Evolution, micro and macro.

Micro evolution is where living organisms are constantly making minor changes adjusting to changing conditions so they can improve and survive. There are many documented cases where this has been observed. So that is easy to believe.

The second part is macro evolution. That is the theory that all life on earth in its present form is here due to minor changes over eons of time. Since micro evolution is observable, many make the giant leap mentally that macro evolution must also be the 100% explanation for all life on earth. To many people this question is not 100% settled. Not were does evolution address the origins of life as we know it.

So yes, like you, I can easily believe in micro evolution, but still working on macro evolution for the answer to it all. Good luck with your journey.

We have a new section in our FAQ section just for people like you, have you had a chance to check it out?


Excellent quote!

"Biogeography predicted by evolution -

“The theory of evolution predicts patterns of species not just over time in the fossil record, but also in the distribution of species today around Earth—the study of which is called biogeography.”

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.