Annalise: Last year a poll showed that 49% of Americans believe in evolution and 48% of Americans do not. This means that about half of the people in the U.S. reject something that the scientific community universally agrees is a fundamental part of our biology.

Although the basic principles of evolution may seem obvious, understanding how evolutionary biology is relevant to our lives is a complex process. For example, is it possible to discover whether certain human behaviors---like altruism or racism---are evolved adaptations? How do conclusions about these kinds of human traits affect the way people view the discipline of evolutionary biology, which also investigates issues like disease evolution or conservation of endangered species?

I think one reason that evolution is so controversial in the public sphere is that many people misunderstand how evolution really works. What questions do you have about evolution?

Zygmund: I don't really have a good background in biology (though I will take AP Biology next year), but if half the American population doesn't believe in evolution, I suppose I could easily find myself in the middle of a debate. Do you have any tips on arguing about this?

Annalise: Arguing about evolution can be difficult because it tends to be a very polarizing issue outside of the scientific arena.  Many people who reject evolution are quite ignorant of what evolutionary biology is all about---so pointing out some of the basic principles is a good start.

…if half the American population doesn't believe in evolution, I suppose I could easily find myself in the middle of a debate [about it]. Do you have any tips on arguing about this?

Another approach that may be useful is to bust some myths.  Some people say they reject evolution because they don't believe "everything is random."  It's hard to believe that complex adaptations could have arisen out of a disordered process---but no one should, because adaptations are not products of random evolution!  So explaining the role of natural selection is an important counter-argument to the "everything is random" criticism.

Another reason some people say they reject evolution is because they dislike the idea that we descended from monkeys.  The fundamental problem here may be that some people view humans as categorically different from animals.  That view fades as understanding grows about how our biology is shared among all life forms.  And it's important in a conversation about common descent to explain that we did not "evolve from monkeys"---at least not the monkeys that share the planet with us today.  Our closest relatives are apes like chimpanzees and gorillas.  With these apes we share a common primate (not monkey) ancestor, from which humans, chimpanzees and gorillas all descended.

kchiu7: Personally, I like the idea that we're descended from chimps. They are one of the most intelligent creatures, and they can outperform humans in some specific tasks. Source: Wikipedia "Young chimpanzees have outperformed human college students in tasks requiring remembering numbers." Also, young apes can climb trees and etc. I don't see any 3 year old toddlers swinging from tree to tree.

InCognitoMemberA: I found a very interesting piece recently - here's an excerpt.
"If the universe, and everything in it came into existence when some primordial soup exploded some 20 billion years ago as the evolutionists say, (this is the event commonly referred to as the “Big Bang”)..." "If man had been here as long as Evolutionists say..There would be about 100,000 people per square inch!!" 

How do you deal with someone who argues on this level? People are entitled to their opinion, but they should try to give respect or at least know what they're arguing against. What can you say?

Annalise: The argument you quote here is a classic example of anti-evolution rhetoric.  In addition to some really obvious factual inaccuracies, this argument tries to make a logical (some might say "scientific") claim that if the earth were really billions of years old, there would be way too many people now.

I’ve read the argument online "If man had been here as long as Evolutionists say..There would be about 100,000 people per square inch!!" How do you deal with someone who argues on this level?

So how to counter such an argument?  First, point out the factual errors.  Scientists estimate the age of the earth to be about 14 billion years old, not 20---and much more importantly, the formation of our planet occurred even later than that, about 4.5 billion years ago.  Therefore the prehistoric oceans in which life first arose, the so-called "primordial soup," were not part of the Big Bang event that formed the universe.  But most importantly, this anti-evolution argument should be criticized for crazy logic.  Think for a minute about why someone might argue that there would be massive overpopulation if the earth were really old.  What kinds of assumptions would you have to make to argue such a claim?  In a way this is a mathematical problem, but I assure you that the major flaws in this argument have to do with assumptions about the human species!

InCognitoMemberB: One thing that has always intrigued me about evolution is that the actual process of evolving seems difficult to imagine.  As far as I know, an animal could only evolve through genetic mutations.  These mutations would affect the proteins created by the animal.  However, many mutations of the same kind, resulting in the same protein, would have to occur at the same time.  This seems unlikely - am I right?

In addition, those mutations could only be of the "substitution" type - other mutations would kill the animal or produce a protein that would be discarded by the animal's body.  This fact seems to make evolution even more unlikely.  Is this correct?

(go to next page...)