I Had This Dropped In My Lap. How Should I Answer?

[Storm]

I am in a facebook conversation with a couple people about Evolution. A friend of mine posted the Ray Comfort video "Questions Atheists cant answer". Through the discussion things have been fairly logical. But this was dropped and I was hoping that someone can help me answer this:

"The examples you gave are not proof of evolution, they're proof of adaptation. Evolution is not proven until an organisms change in class: a flu virus that becomes resistant is now a resistant flu, not measles. Evolution is a theory, all be it a relatively sound one, but there hasn't been a single observable instance of evolution, and that includes fossil records"

 

He is responding to this post I made:

" I am not capable of proving it because I am not trained in those particular sciences. However, Evolution exists and has happened in our lifetimes. We have antibiotic resistant bacteria today because viruses adapted to the changes that modern medicine have brought forth. There are now bacteria that can consume plastic. This is proof that evolution still happens. Why does everything have to be taken in faith? Why cant people just say "we don't know?"

Can you all help?

 

[scitsofreaky]

The examples you gave are not proof of evolution, they're proof of adaptation. Evolution is not proven until an organisms change in class: a flu virus that becomes resistant is now a resistant flu, not measles. Evolution is a theory, all be it a relatively sound one, but there hasn't been a single observable instance of evolution, and that includes fossil records"

The ever moving goal post. Why is evolution only proven when there is a change in class? And that example is making me giggle. Wow, a flu virus doesn't magically turn into measles? No shit. So first, evolution is just the change in allel frequency in a population. That's it. Second, why do creationtards expect an animal to turn into another existant animal? Basically, the argument is, "I don;t understand a damn thing about evolution, therefore it is not true." Honestly, these discussions are usually pointless and will just get you aggrivated for no reason.

[Fernweh]

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old and evolution has been a process for something like 75% of this time. YEC's are looking at a time scale of around 6000 years so they aren't looking at this in the proper time context. We will never notice any appreciable difference in Continental Drift during our lifetimes but it's real and didn't stop just for us. In a million years the landscape of the entire planet will look different and so will all the life on it; and that next million years will be just a fraction of the age of the Earth.

[Thurisaz]

The entire statement shows (as usual with babblical cretinists) that they don't know shit about what evolutionary theory really states and that they don't care about learning even the basics of it either.

 

If I was you I'd tell them that, before I even bother to answer, I demand they show evidence that they know at least the basics of what they chose to talk about. Not that you'll ever see that.

[DoubtingNate]

This. I like to give homework (they won't read it). 'Why Evolution is True' by Jerry Coyne and 'the Greatest Show On Earth' are both excellent reads, but it won't matter. Or at least spit out facts / quiz them until their heads spin and they realize they are out of their league. Most creationists don't seem to understand how little it is they know about the topic. The nicer ones will at least admit to this.

 

One good question is to ask when the first Latin speaking woman gave birth to an Italian speaking baby. Evolution isn't just for DNA; the principles can be observed everywhere.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Your friend clearly does not understand the difference between micro-evolution (which he is calling "adaptation") and macro-evolution (which he seems to think consists of a fish giving birth to a monkey).  Micro-evolution happens all the time, via beneficial mutations in a species' genetic matrix which mutations are caused by selective pressures in the species' environment.  And macro-evolutions occurs via micro-evolution.

 

Think about it this way:  In the highland forest area, there is a group of spotted river newts.  Because their spots provide good camoflague, the group becomes too large for the resources of the environment to be able to sustain it.  A sub-group splits off and swims downstream several miles into a lowland grassy area.  Their spots are now highly conspicuous and they are easily picked off by kestrels and perrigrins.  However, a few newts have spots that are slightly elongated.  These elongated spots provide better cover in the tall grass.  These newts will live long enough to reproduce and pass the elongated spot gene on to the next generation (this is micro-evolution).  After several generations, the elongated spot gene will have been enhanced into a gene that codes for stripes.  Eventually there will be enough genetic variance between the striped river newt and the spotted river newt that their gametes will no longer be able to fuse (they won't be able to mate successfully with each other); and the striped river newt will be declared to be a new species (this is macro-evolution).

[sdelsolray]

Ray Comfort is using a standard creationist tactic - the bait and switch with a side salad of conflation.  He is conflating the noun "evolution" as it applies to biology, with the Theory of Biological Evolution, particularly the part of the theory that explains speciation.  He then switches the theory for the noun.

[VacuumFlux]

Creationists like to make false claims about there being a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. They say they have no problem with small changes in an organism, but that big changes don't happen. What they miss is that "macro-evolution" doesn't say that organisms make sudden big changes; evolution says that over long periods of time, lots of small changes can alter a population to the point that they can't all interbreed with each other any more - that's speciation. It can also happen if a single species is geographically isolated from other members of the species for long enough that when they rejoin, they can't interbreed any more.

 

They claim that evolution can't be true because we don't see one kind of animal change into a vastly different animal withing recorded human history. But evolution says that changes generally don't happen that fast, and even if one critter did change that rapidly, it would be unlikely that a suitable mate also changed in compatible ways so that they could produce viable offspring, and even if that worked out, who would the grandkids mate with? Evolution in animals requires an entire population changing together over a lot of generations. Even rabbits don't breed fast enough for us to see a huge change in them over a few thousand years. Viruses and bacteria have short enough lifespans to evolve quickly relative to animals, and the ability to clone themselves so that they can survive rapid changes that an animal species could not. Animals are big and complex and... sort have a lot of institutional interia. The single celled organisms are much more adaptable. Plants are somewhere in between (plants, like bacteria and protozoa, are also capable of asexual reproduction (cloning themselves) and lateral/horizonal gene transfer (swapping some DNA bits among adults, not just mixing up the DNA that they pass on to the next generation, and sometimes even between members of different species. The idea of a species being a group of organisms that interbreed works quite well in the animal kingdom, but gets a lot fuzzier in the other kingdoms)).

[Storm]

This is going to get interesting now. Another person chimed in with this doozy:

 

"Huge hole in evolution: no observable change from one species to another and absolutely no proof. There has been no proof of evolution of species, which is what Darwinism hangs its hat on. Even young earth creationists believe one species can adapt, but no one has ever seen even a remote change from one species to another. Hard to believe people believe we ultimately came from a rock"

 

 

I haven't really said a lot, but I am willing to break this open if you all will help me.

[sdelsolray]

This is going to get interesting now. Another person chimed in with this doozy:

 

"Huge hole in evolution: no observable change from one species to another and absolutely no proof. There has been no proof of evolution of species, which is what Darwinism hangs its hat on. Even young earth creationists believe one species can adapt, but no one has ever seen even a remote change from one species to another. Hard to believe people believe we ultimately came from a rock"

 

 

I haven't really said a lot, but I am willing to break this open if you all will help me.

Well, your Facebook poster is lying (speciation has been observed in real time and inferred historically from empirical evidence) and adding the argument from incredulity fallacy for good measure ("hard to believe"…).

 

You can certainly address the post.  I would also suggest posing your own question:

 

"What is the biological process which stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution?"

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is going to get interesting now. Another person chimed in with this doozy:

 

"Huge hole in evolution: no observable change from one species to another and absolutely no proof. There has been no proof of evolution of species, which is what Darwinism hangs its hat on. Even young earth creationists believe one species can adapt, but no one has ever seen even a remote change from one species to another. Hard to believe people believe we ultimately came from a rock"

 

 

I haven't really said a lot, but I am willing to break this open if you all will help me.

This individual has clearly not ever seen the fossil record, or even a basic high school biology textbook.   

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"Hard to believe people believe we ultimately came from a rock"

 

So it's easier to believe we ultimately came from dust?  How's that work?

[RogueScholar]

Hey storm, you should follow up with the following: "Oh, I see. You are asking to see evidence of one species becoming another, in other words a speciation event?"

 

If the answer is affirmative:

 

"Ask and ye shall receive;

 

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html"

 

My oh my, if only creationists would look at the evidence...

[florduh]

Dropped in your lap? Well, stand up, walk away, and your lap is no more. Stop wasting your time and talent.

 

What many Ex-C folks forget when getting stuck in these exchanges with believers is that they are not interested in debate or knowledge; they only wish to convince you of their faith.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Hey storm, you should follow up with the following: "Oh, I see. You are asking to see evidence of one species becoming another, in other words a speciation event?"

 

If the answer is affirmative:

 

"Ask and ye shall receive;

 

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html"

 

My oh my, if only creationists would look at the evidence...

One begins to wonder how much further along science would be if scientists didn't have to stop working every 10 minutes to explain why "Irreducible Complexity" isn't proof that gawd dunnit. 

[Guest]

 

One good question is to ask when the first Latin speaking woman gave birth to an Italian speaking baby. Evolution isn't just for DNA; the principles can be observed everywhere.

 

This is a brilliant analogy.

[Storm]

Hey storm, you should follow up with the following: "Oh, I see. You are asking to see evidence of one species becoming another, in other words a speciation event?"

 

If the answer is affirmative:

 

"Ask and ye shall receive;

 

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html"

 

My oh my, if only creationists would look at the evidence...

Thanks Rogue, I posted this link. We will see what he says.

 

Dropped in your lap? Well, stand up, walk away, and your lap is no more. Stop wasting your time and talent.

 

What many Ex-C folks forget when getting stuck in these exchanges with believers is that they are not interested in debate or knowledge; they only wish to convince you of their faith.

I agree Florduh that he isn't looking to do anything but assert what he believes. I know he hasn't done the research and is simply spitting out what he has read and heard over the years from Christian laypersons and internet articles. He is a smart guy, I know he can see the truth, but I also know he likely wont be swayed. I mostly like doing this type of "debate" (if you will) to sharpen my thinking and to help me see different perspectives, and, ultimately in this exchange, I get to learn more about evolution from all of the people who post on this link. I think its a good thing for me. These are my friends, so I will keep it civil, however, I have no issue with pushing them to see what they believe and why. I learn a lot about them in these types of interactions. You all have to remember I am a closet free thinker, they do not know my true beliefs. So I do have to still play the game to a point.

 

Thank you all for your responses thus far. Please feel free to add anything you feel might help. I will post any responses as they come.

[Thurisaz]

Florduh I'd say they're not even interested in converting you. At their cores they want to be right and feel smugly superior in their "knowledge" that they're always right because jeeeeeeebus.

 

As for this speciation crap... Storm, if you really want to try and keep up a debate with the willfully brainfucked, try to explain to them that there's a tree of evolutionary past behind all the species we observe today. You show a babblical cretinist the evolution of, say, a new species of cat right in front of his eyes and he'll drool "it's still a cat" because he proudly doesn't know jack about that tree.

 

Go up one branch in the tree and he'd play the game as "it's still a mammal". I'm not enough of a biologist to remember all those branches so I'll restrict myself to offer the even earlier times when cretinists would have babbled "yeah but it's still a vertebrate" or "It's still an animal".

 

Of course, if you manage to really make them understand this... you'll have deserved a medal already.

[Storm]

Florduh I'd say they're not even interested in converting you. At their cores they want to be right and feel smugly superior in their "knowledge" that they're always right because jeeeeeeebus.

 

As for this speciation crap... Storm, if you really want to try and keep up a debate with the willfully brainfucked, try to explain to them that there's a tree of evolutionary past behind all the species we observe today. You show a babblical cretinist the evolution of, say, a new species of cat right in front of his eyes and he'll drool "it's still a cat" because he proudly doesn't know jack about that tree.

 

Go up one branch in the tree and he'd play the game as "it's still a mammal". I'm not enough of a biologist to remember all those branches so I'll restrict myself to offer the even earlier times when cretinists would have babbled "yeah but it's still a vertebrate" or "It's still an animal".

 

Of course, if you manage to really make them understand this... you'll have deserved a medal already.

Its so funny that you posted this just now, because he read the link Rogue posted and made this response:

 

"The fact of the matter is, they are still lizards. So, it isn't what the Bible will call a change of kinds. This has never been observed. They may be a different "species" of lizards, but they are still lizards. Darwinian evolution says that we all came from a rock. This is completely wrong and unbiblical. If you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in death and suffering before the fall. This completely changes the atonement and what Christ has done for us. Either you believe in evolution, or you believe the Bible. There are many other cases I can make for this, but they cannot be reconciled. You bring out a good point, though. The correct term to use is the biblical term four kinds, not species. Also, to believe in evolution, you would have to believe that everything came from nothing. I'm sorry, but this is just plain dumb. There are more gaps that scientists have to fill to justify evolution than what Christianity has to fill to justify its existence and validity. One example being, evolution uses rock layers to help to date things in the ground. Why, then, are there petrified trees growing through many layers of Rock? The reason is because a flood caused these layers and they are not representative of eras of time. One may not be able to prove the existence of God necessarily, but I believe you can disprove evolution."

[Fernweh]

 

Florduh I'd say they're not even interested in converting you. At their cores they want to be right and feel smugly superior in their "knowledge" that they're always right because jeeeeeeebus.

 

As for this speciation crap... Storm, if you really want to try and keep up a debate with the willfully brainfucked, try to explain to them that there's a tree of evolutionary past behind all the species we observe today. You show a babblical cretinist the evolution of, say, a new species of cat right in front of his eyes and he'll drool "it's still a cat" because he proudly doesn't know jack about that tree.

 

Go up one branch in the tree and he'd play the game as "it's still a mammal". I'm not enough of a biologist to remember all those branches so I'll restrict myself to offer the even earlier times when cretinists would have babbled "yeah but it's still a vertebrate" or "It's still an animal".

 

Of course, if you manage to really make them understand this... you'll have deserved a medal already.

Its so funny that you posted this just now, because he read the link Rogue posted and made this response:

 

"The fact of the matter is, they are still lizards. So, it isn't what the Bible will call a change of kinds. This has never been observed. They may be a different "species" of lizards, but they are still lizards. Darwinian evolution says that we all came from a rock. This is completely wrong and unbiblical. If you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in death and suffering before the fall. This completely changes the atonement and what Christ has done for us. Either you believe in evolution, or you believe the Bible. There are many other cases I can make for this, but they cannot be reconciled. You bring out a good point, though. The correct term to use is the biblical term four kinds, not species. Also, to believe in evolution, you would have to believe that everything came from nothing. I'm sorry, but this is just plain dumb. There are more gaps that scientists have to fill to justify evolution than what Christianity has to fill to justify its existence and validity. One example being, evolution uses rock layers to help to date things in the ground. Why, then, are there petrified trees growing through many layers of Rock? The reason is because a flood caused these layers and they are not representative of eras of time. One may not be able to prove the existence of God necessarily, but I believe you can disprove evolution."

 

 

After reading that I'd say you are wasting your time with this one. This is what you would call "Not Even Wrong".

[mymistake]

How comes when two Grate Danes mate they never give birth to a Chiwawa?  And how comes when two Chiwawas mate they never give birth to Grate Danes?  By the Ray Comfort Principle^tm Chiwawas and Grate Danes can't both be dogs.

 

Organisms don't suddenly change class.  Class differences emerges gradually as animals slowly diverge.  A million years from now the survivors of today's dogs might form many entirely different spices.

 

 

This can be seen with felines as well.  Tigers, lions, pumas, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, bobcats, lynx, small jungle cats, domesticated cats and so on all descended from a common ancestor and now many of them cannot intermix to still have viable young.

[pck]

In case you want to keep that discussion going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

To turn the tables on him, you could also pose some questions related to the flood, as he already mentioned it.

[RogueScholar]

Storm, if you are serious about debating with people, you will likely need to do more than post a link unfortunately. You will need to have a basic understanding of evolution and evolutionary forces. It's easy for people to misinterpret terminology and concepts then come up with an invalid retort. Ultimately, many people will not yield no matter what evidence you have available. After all, the whole point of a faith based world view is belief without evidence. I don't really expect the link to cause people to change their minds, but it does limit their ability to debate, ultimately making them admit that their worldview is not evidence based.

[Storm]

Storm, if you are serious about debating with people, you will likely need to do more than post a link unfortunately. You will need to have a basic understanding of evolution and evolutionary forces. It's easy for people to misinterpret terminology and concepts then come up with an invalid retort. Ultimately, many people will not yield no matter what evidence you have available. After all, the whole point of a faith based world view is belief without evidence. I don't really expect the link to cause people to change their minds, but it does limit their ability to debate, ultimately making them admit that their worldview is not evidence based.

I totally agree. I need to become more adept at this. This was a simple step in that direction. I think one of the problems I have had in this journey of freethinking is that sometimes I don't know where to start and where to look. I have a somewhat basic understanding of some of the concepts. I am trained in the scientific method and I understand how to read published journal articles, so I have a small head start in that regard, however, I don't know exactly where to start and what things really are the hard hitters and the meat of the discussion. I am a novice and in this particular case, I am not looking to formally debate, but merely challenge his assertions. I think the link set him back a bit and he is trying to figure it out. I agree with most of you all that he isn't going to change his view, but I like to keep them on their toes and challenge what they believe. But as many other people have stated in other threads, lurkers see this stuff too and maybe they get what they need to possibly convince or at least get them thinking. If by my folly others find the truth, then that is a good thing.

[Thurisaz]

That posted reply again proves that the cretinist doesn't know shit. Common as it is for the willfully brainfucked to treat evolution and abiogenesis as identical ("something coming from nothing" has precisely not the fuck to do with evolution), it's still wrong and shows that in all likelihood further debate with that idiot is a waste of time and breathable air.