Questions to Ask an Evolutionist
These questions to ask an evolutionist are for a creationist, a student from a faith background or a curious skeptic who wants to understand what a biology teacher, a scientist or a friend actually thinks, and not to win. They run in the order a good conversation does: Openers that settle what the word means, Evidence from fossils, dating and DNA, Origins and design, Being human, Faith and science, and Closers. Each note says plainly how the science answers the question, where it has no answer yet, and what a fair or an evasive reply sounds like.
Want questions from the whole vault instead? Try the random question generator.
The questions
Each question, and why to ask it
Openers
Do you mind being called an evolutionist, or would you put it another way?
Why ask it
These days the word is used mostly by people who doubt evolution, and biologists seldom apply it to themselves, much as nobody who accepts gravity is called a gravitationist. Most will say they simply accept the science. Asking first costs nothing and shows you came to listen.
When you say evolution, what exactly do you mean by it?
Why ask it
A good share of the arguments on this subject are two people using one word for different things. A careful answer separates change in living populations over generations, common ancestry, and mechanisms such as natural selection, and it leaves the big bang and the first life to other fields. Agree on the meaning before the next question.
Evolution is called a theory. What does that word mean to a scientist?
Why ask it
In everyday speech a theory is a hunch. In science it is an explanation that ties many tested observations together, as germ theory and plate tectonics do, so the word is not an admission of doubt. A good answer makes the distinction without sneering, and then tells you which parts are observation and which are explanation.
What is the one piece of evidence you would show me if we only had ten minutes?
Why ask it
The answer you hope for picks a single thing and explains it in plain words: a shared genetic mistake in two species, a fossil found where it was predicted, bacteria changing in a flask. "There is just so much" is the weak reply, because it leans on authority. Ask where you could look at it yourself.
How did you come to accept evolution? Was it a class, a book, a person, or was it simply assumed?
Why ask it
Plenty of people accept it for the same reason others reject it: the adults around them did. Someone who admits that is being straight with you. Someone who can name what settled it has just handed you your next question.
Have you ever doubted it, or changed your mind about some part of it?
Why ask it
People raised in a creationist church who later accepted evolution usually have the most useful story here, including what it cost them. A scientist may name a detail they once taught and no longer would. Never having had a single doubt is the least interesting answer and worth a gentle second ask.
What do people who doubt evolution get wrong about it, and what do its defenders get wrong about the doubters?
Why ask it
The first half usually brings up monkeys turning into people or everything happening by accident. The second half is the test of fairness: a thoughtful person will say that doubters are not stupid and that a great deal is at stake for them. If only the first half gets an answer, expect a lecture.
Evidence
If evolution happened, where are the transitional fossils?
Why ask it
Expect to be told that museums hold many: fish with limb-like fins, dinosaurs with feathers, early whales with hind legs, a run of human relatives. Ask to be walked through one sequence, gaps included. Fossils form rarely, so an honest account says the record is patchy and still tells a consistent story.
Why do so many animal groups seem to appear suddenly in the Cambrian rocks?
Why ask it
Suddenly, to a geologist, means many millions of years, and older rocks hold simpler animals that came before. Past that, the reasons are argued over: rising oxygen, the first predators, hard parts that fossilize well. Someone who tells you it is partly unsettled is giving you the accurate picture.
How do scientists know how old a rock or a fossil is?
Why ask it
Listen for more than one method. Dates come from the steady decay of several different radioactive elements, checked against one another and against things like tree rings and ice layers. Good follow-ups are what each method assumes, what happens when two disagree, and why carbon dating, which reaches back only tens of thousands of years, is never the method for dinosaur bones.
How could soft tissue last inside a dinosaur bone for millions of years?
Why ask it
The finds are real: flexible, vessel-like structures and traces of protein have been reported from a small number of dinosaur bones, and they surprised the researchers who found them. How such material could last is still being worked out, with iron from the animal's blood acting as a preservative among the ideas, and the age of the bones rests on dating the rock around them, not on the tissue. Trust the person who admits the surprise.
Has anyone watched one kind of living thing become another?
Why ask it
On a small scale, yes: bacteria gaining resistance, and plants and insects splitting into populations that no longer interbreed. Change on the scale of fish to land animals takes far longer than anyone has been watching, so that case is built from fossils and DNA the way a detective works from a scene. A straight answer gives you both halves.
Is there a real difference between microevolution and macroevolution, or is it one process?
Why ask it
Many creationists accept small changes inside a kind and doubt that they add up to new kinds, so this may be where the two of you truly differ. Biologists mostly see one process running for a longer time, and will want to know what would stop small changes from accumulating. Have your answer ready, and expect to be asked where the edge of a kind lies.
What does DNA show about common ancestry that fossils cannot?
Why ask it
Many biologists would rest the whole case here. Related species carry the same broken genes and the same stray insertions in the same places, and the family tree drawn from DNA largely matches the one drawn earlier from bones. Ask for one example by name, so that you can look it up afterward.
Why do some animals, like the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab, look almost unchanged after so long?
Why ask it
Nothing in the theory says change must keep a steady pace. A body that suits a stable setting can be held in place by selection, and the living species are not identical to the fossil ones in any case. If all you are told is that they got lucky, ask what kept them the same.
Do leftover organs like the appendix really have no use?
Why ask it
The claim is often misstated, by both sides. Vestigial means reduced or put to a different use compared with the same part in related animals, and it has never had to mean useless. The hip bones inside a whale and the wings of a flightless bird make the point better than the appendix does.
What about the fakes and mistakes, like Piltdown Man and the embryo drawings?
Why ask it
They happened. Piltdown was a forgery, the embryo drawings were embellished, and a lone tooth once credited to an early human relative belonged to a pig-like animal. The answer to trust owns all of it and adds that scientists were the ones who exposed them. Irritation at the question is a poor sign.
Nobody was there to see it. How can a claim about the distant past be tested?
Why ask it
By predicting what will be found before anyone finds it. The well-known case is Tiktaalik, a fish with a neck and wrist-like bones in its fins, which was searched for in Arctic rock of a chosen age and turned up there. It is fair to add that a reconstruction of the past is held differently from an experiment you can run again, and a good scientist will agree.
What discovery would show that evolution is wrong?
Why ask it
The stock reply is fossils badly out of order, such as rabbits in the oldest rocks, or DNA family trees that flatly contradicted the anatomy. A person who can name something is treating the idea as science. "Nothing could" ought to bother both of you, and the question will come back to you next.
What practical difference does evolution make, say in medicine or farming?
Why ask it
You will probably hear about resistance in bacteria and crop pests, flu vaccines revised as the virus changes, and outbreaks traced through the family tree of a virus. A creationist can fairly say that those need only small changes inside a kind, which nobody disputes. That sends the two of you back to whether small and large change are one process.
What do the scientists who study evolution still argue about among themselves?
Why ask it
Quite a lot: how fast change runs, how much is selection and how much is drift, how new body plans arise, where particular branches of the tree belong. Arguing over how it happened is different from doubting that it did. See whether they draw that line without using it to hide the unsolved parts.
Origins and design
How did life begin in the first place, and is that part of evolution?
Why ask it
Nobody knows yet, and the best answer says so without embarrassment. The origin of life is its own field of research: experiments have produced some of life's building blocks under conditions meant to resemble the early Earth, and no one has made a living cell from plain chemistry. Be wary of anyone who calls it solved, and equally of anyone who says the question does not matter.
Where did the universe and its laws come from, and does evolution say anything about that?
Why ask it
It does not. Evolution starts with living things already here, and the big bang and the fine tuning of physics belong to cosmology and philosophy. Lists of challenges often open with this one, so a biologist who says it is outside their field is answering correctly and not dodging. You can still ask what they personally think.
Is evolution the same as saying everything happened by chance?
Why ask it
Expect an objection to the wording. Mutations are random in the sense that they do not arrive because they are needed, but selection, which keeps what works, is the opposite of random. The picture of a tornado assembling a machine in a junkyard leaves that step out. Whether the very first step was chance is a fair thing to press, and it leads back to the origin of life.
Aren't most mutations harmful, and how could copying mistakes build anything?
Why ask it
Most make no noticeable difference, some do harm, and a few help in a given setting. Ask for a helpful one in people: the change that lets many adults go on digesting milk is the usual example. A reply that waves at billions of years without one concrete case is weaker than it sounds.
Where did the information in DNA come from, and can mutation add anything new?
Why ask it
Biologists point to genes that get copied twice, which leaves the spare copy free to change. Cases on record include bacteria that came to digest a byproduct of nylon manufacture and a decades-long E. coli experiment in which one line began feeding on citrate. The disagreement usually hides in the word information, so ask for their definition and offer yours.
How could an eye, or anything that needs all its parts, be built one small step at a time?
Why ask it
Darwin raised the eye himself. Living animals show a whole range, from a patch of light-sensitive cells to a cup, a pinhole and a lens, each one useful to its owner. For the harder version, the claim that some molecular machines cannot lose a part, the reply is that the parts did other jobs first. Ask for one worked example and judge how complete it is.
Living things look designed. Why are you sure they were not?
Why ask it
Most will grant the appearance. The case against direct design leans on awkward features that make sense as inherited history: the blind spot in our eye, a nerve in the giraffe that runs down the neck and back up. Notice whether they say no designer is needed to explain the details or that there is no designer, because only the first is a scientific claim.
Doesn't the second law of thermodynamics say things run down, not build up?
Why ask it
The law describes a system with no energy coming in, and the Earth is bathed in sunlight. Order rises locally all the time, in a snowflake or a growing seed, while the total still runs down. Physicists treat this one as settled, so if it is answered patiently you are talking with a patient person.
What are the odds of a working protein, or a cell, coming together by itself?
Why ask it
The enormous numbers quoted assume every part falling into place at once and at random. Nobody in the field proposes that: chemistry has preferences, and the first things able to copy themselves are thought to have been far simpler than any cell alive now. Since no complete pathway is known, the fair conclusion is that the odds cannot be calculated either way.
How did single cells ever become bodies made of many kinds of cell?
Why ask it
Part of this is known and part is not. Many-celled life seems to have arisen separately in several lines, and in the lab single-celled yeast and algae have formed simple clusters that reproduce as groups. A cluster is a long way from an animal with organs, and a careful person will say that too.
How did reproduction with two parents get started, when one parent copying itself seems simpler?
Why ask it
This is an open question inside biology, with several ideas in play: shuffling genes to keep ahead of parasites, repairing damage, clearing out bad mutations. You are listening for "we are not sure" followed by the candidates. A confident one-line answer is the one to doubt.
Being human
If humans came from apes, why are there still apes?
Why ask it
This may be the best-known question on the subject, and the answer is short: the claim is that people and living apes share an ancestor, as cousins share a grandparent, not that one turned into the other. Some of the larger creationist ministries list it among arguments their own readers should stop using. Go on to what that ancestor is thought to have been like and how much of it is known.
What do the fossils of early humans actually show, and is there a missing link?
Why ask it
Biologists dislike the phrase missing link, because it pictures a single chain where the fossils look more like a branching bush. What has been dug up is a spread of upright walkers with small brains, later forms with bigger brains and stone tools, and Neanderthals, who left traces of their DNA in many living people. Which were direct ancestors and which were side branches is still argued, and someone who knows the bones will tell you that.
Why do humans and chimpanzees share so much DNA, and could a common designer explain that just as well?
Why ask it
Leave the percentage alone, since the figure depends on what is counted. The argument rests on particular quirks, such as a human chromosome that looks like two ape chromosomes joined end to end. Common design is a fair idea to raise. Ask what each view would predict about genes that are broken in the same way in both.
What makes humans different from other animals, as you see it?
Why ask it
Language, culture that builds on itself and moral reasoning are the usual list. Some people call them differences of degree, others see a difference in kind, and some will say science does not decide between the two. You find out whether "just an animal" is their view or one you had assigned to them.
Can evolution explain consciousness, the fact that there is someone looking out from in here?
Why ask it
Not so far. That minds depend on brains, and that brains have a history, is well supported. Why any of it is accompanied by experience is unsolved in science and in philosophy alike. An answer that claims more than that is overreaching, and you can say so.
If our brains were shaped for survival, why trust them to find what is true?
Why ask it
Philosophers still argue about this one. The usual reply is that a creature with roughly accurate beliefs about its surroundings does better than one without, and that science adds checks no single brain supplies: instruments, repeat tests, rivals eager to find the flaw. Save it for someone who enjoys thinking, and skip it with a person who only came to talk biology.
Where do right and wrong come from, if we are a product of evolution?
Why ask it
Two questions are folded together. Where moral feelings came from has an evolutionary account, built on care for kin and cooperation in social animals. Whether anything is truly right or wrong is not a biology question at all, and many people who accept evolution ground it in God. Listen for whether they keep the two apart.
Why would evolution produce people who give up their lives for strangers?
Why ask it
Helping relatives and trading favors are explained fairly readily, and sacrifice for a stranger is harder. Some point to reputation, some to instincts formed in small groups where everyone was kin, some to culture and conscience taking over from genes. An admission that it is not fully worked out is more believable than a tidy story.
Does survival of the fittest mean the strong ought to win among people?
Why ask it
Eugenics and what was called social Darwinism borrowed the theory's name and did real harm, and a trustworthy answer admits that history first. Then come two corrections: fit means leaving descendants, which cooperation often serves better than force, and a description of nature is not an instruction for how to live.
Does accepting evolution change how you see the meaning of your own life?
Why ask it
The fear behind this is that people become an accident. In practice the answers vary: meaning from a God who worked through the process, meaning that people make, or a feeling of kinship with everything alive. Let them give their own answer and do not supply the bleak one for them.
Faith and science
Do you believe in God, and did accepting evolution have anything to do with your answer?
Why ask it
Do not guess. Many people who accept evolution are religious, working scientists among them. Whichever way they answer, you learn which conversation you are in: one with a fellow believer who reads Genesis differently, or one with a nonbeliever for whom the science was one reason or no reason at all.
Can a person believe that God created and also accept evolution?
Why ask it
Many do, under names like theistic evolution or evolutionary creation, and the Catholic Church and a number of Protestant bodies have said the two can be held together. Other churches teach that they cannot. If you are told you must choose, from either direction, ask why, because science has no test for whether God stands behind a process.
How do you read the first chapters of Genesis?
Why ask it
For someone who reads the Bible. You will hear straightforward history, an ordered literary account, an ancient way of describing the world, or theology told as story. Ask what they think the passage is there to teach. With a person of no faith, ask what they were taught about it as a child, and leave it there.
Were Adam and Eve real people, as far as you can tell?
Why ask it
Geneticists read the variety in human DNA as pointing back to an ancestral population in the thousands, not to one couple. Believers who accept that have several ways of holding it: a real pair among others, representatives, or figures in a story about everyone. It is a tender point for many Christians, so ask it of someone who shares your stake in the answer.
Where does the soul fit, if human beings came about gradually?
Why ask it
Science has no instrument for a soul, so a scientist speaking as a scientist can only say the question lies outside the method. Believers who accept evolution answer in different ways; the Catholic Church, for one, teaches that the body may have a long history while each soul is created directly by God. If you are told that evolution has disproved the soul, that is a philosophical position and you can ask for the argument behind it.
If death and suffering were in the world long before people, what does that do to the idea of a good creation?
Why ask it
For many Christians this, and not the fossils, is the real obstacle. It is a question of theology, and a scientist cannot answer it as a scientist. A believer who accepts evolution has usually thought hard about it, and a nonbeliever may say it is part of why they do not believe. Either answer deserves a quiet hearing.
Is accepting evolution a kind of faith?
Why ask it
They will likely say no: confidence that rests on evidence anyone can check, and that would shift if the evidence did, is a different thing from religious faith. The honest ones add that they have personally checked very little and are trusting other people's work. Ask which parts they have seen with their own eyes.
What can science not tell us?
Why ask it
Purpose, value and whether God exists are what most scientists place beyond the reach of their methods. Someone who says science will answer everything has taken a philosophical position, not a scientific one, and it is fair to point that out kindly. This is often the place where a believer and a scientist find they agree.
Should creation or intelligent design be taught beside evolution in a science class?
Why ask it
Most will say no, on the grounds that a science class covers what can be tested, and many will add that a religion or philosophy class is the right home for it. The rules differ by country, state and school, so ask how it works where you live and do not take anyone's summary as the law. Then ask what, in their view, makes an idea testable enough to belong in a science class.
What should a student who believes in creation do in a biology class?
Why ask it
One to put to a teacher. The standard many describe is that a student has to understand the theory and explain it accurately, and that belief is not what gets graded. If you are that student, ask your own teacher early how answers are marked, because schools do not all handle it alike.
Closers
What is the strongest objection to evolution you have come across?
Why ask it
It asks for generosity, and people who know the subject can usually name one, often the origin of life or consciousness. Someone who cannot think of any has probably only met weak versions. Whatever they name, read up on that before you meet again.
What would you like to ask me about what I believe?
Why ask it
So far only one of you has been answering. Their questions show how your beliefs look from the outside, and the hard ones are fair after what you have asked. Answer as plainly as you hoped they would.
Now that we have talked, where do you think we actually disagree?
Why ask it
The gap is often narrower than it looked at the start: the age of the Earth and not whether living things change, or how to read a text and not what is in the rocks. Saying it out loud gives the next conversation a place to begin.
What do you find most beautiful about evolution, whether or not I ever come to accept it?
Why ask it
Darwin closed his best-known book by saying there is grandeur in this view of life, and most people who know the subject have their own version: a fossil they once held, the oddness of being related to an oak tree. Leave time for it. The answer tends to be the warmest part of the whole exchange, and hearing it costs you no ground.
If I wanted to look at the evidence for myself, where would you send me first?
Why ask it
One place, not a reading list. A natural history museum, a single book and an online lecture are three different ideas of what is convincing. Going, and then reporting back with what you still doubt, is the surest way to be taken seriously.
Asking so that you learn something
Practical guidance for the conversation itself
Before you ask
Settle what the word covers
Evolution, to a biologist, is about how living things change and how they are related. The beginning of the universe is cosmology, and the first life is chemistry that is still being worked out. If your real question is about one of those, say so, and expect a biologist to tell you it is not their field.
Say what you are after
People who accept evolution are used to being handed a list meant to stump them. Tell them at the start that you want to understand how they see it, and that you may not end up agreeing. It changes the kind of answer you get.
Choose the person for the question
A biology teacher can take the fossils, the DNA and the classroom questions. A friend who simply accepts what they learned at school is better asked how they came to it and what it means to them. For Genesis, Adam and Eve and death before the Fall, look for someone who shares your faith and accepts the science, since they have had to live with both.
Know which arguments your own side has retired
Some of the larger creationist ministries publish lists of arguments they ask their readers not to use, among them "it is only a theory" and "why are there still apes". Reading one beforehand lets you ask those as real questions about what the words mean, and spend your harder questions where the discussion is still alive.
Working through the list
How the groups run
Openers settle terms and give you their story. Evidence is fossils, dating and DNA, where a teacher or a scientist is on home ground. Origins and design holds the questions with the least settled answers, Being human moves from biology toward philosophy, and Faith and science is where a believer has the most at stake. Finish with a Closer so the last word is theirs.
One question, one full answer
Firing ten objections in a row gets ten half answers and a tired friend. Ask one, let them finish, say back what you heard, and only then give your own view or move on. A handful of questions, fully answered, make a whole conversation.
If you only ask eight
What they mean by evolution, the one piece of evidence they would show you, the transitional fossils, what DNA adds, how life began, where right and wrong come from, whether a person can believe God created and accept evolution, and where the two of you actually disagree.
Telling a good answer from a poor one
"We do not know yet"
On the origin of life, on consciousness, on how two-parent reproduction began and on how soft tissue has lasted in a few dinosaur bones, this is the accurate answer, and hearing it should raise your trust in everything else the person says. It is not a point scored, either. An unsolved problem is a place where work is going on, and every science has them.
Evidence you can go and look at
Strong answers point at something: a fossil in a named museum, a gene you can look up, an experiment that is still running. Weak ones point at the number of scientists who agree. Ask where you could see it, and then go and see it.
How it happened and whether it happened
Scientists argue hard about the pace and the mechanisms and hardly at all about common ancestry. An answer that keeps those apart is being careful. One that uses the distinction to step around every hard question is not.
When the answer leaves science
"Evolution shows there is no God" and "evolution shows life has no purpose" are philosophical claims, and so are their opposites. You are free to say that this part is their view and not the science, and a fair-minded person will accept the correction.
What tends to go wrong
Reading from someone else's list
A printed set of challenges, read out in order, is heard as an ambush, and you cannot follow up on an answer to a question you did not understand yourself. Bring the few that are truly yours.
Treating acceptance as atheism
Assuming the other person has no faith shuts out the believers who accept evolution, and they are often the ones best placed to help with the questions you care about most.
Arguing about a number
The share of DNA in common with chimpanzees, the count of fossils, the odds of a protein: each figure depends on how it is counted, and the argument about the figure replaces the one you wanted to have. Ask what the number is measuring instead.
Asking a teacher in front of the class
A question put in front of thirty classmates is a performance for both of you. Ask after the lesson or by appointment, say that you want to understand the material, and ask how your school expects a student's own beliefs to be handled. That varies from place to place, so do not rely on what happened at someone else's school.