An Exercise In Disproving Evolution

[Dinwar]

@Kotatsu and Dinwar, This answer I gave is fine for a creationist.

Proof?

You guys should talk to the creationists after the rest of us are done with their simple misconceptions and a handful of them want to go to graduate school in the subject.

Ah. I see. Your "proof" amounts to a self-selected subset of Creationists that you've confused for the entire set, coupled with the assumption that two active researchers in relevant fields have never encountered Creationists ourselves.

...you guys just seem to be out of the touch with people with simple misconceptions.

No. We simply dislike replacing one misconception with another. We've provided proof that what you're presenting are misconceptions themselves, often worse than the Creationists' misconceptions (both of you are dogmatic fanatics ignorant of the topic at hand, but you proport to be on our side, which hurts my side far more than anything they could do).

You guys have a lot of great information, but, for me, listening to your arguments in this particular subject is shining a light on just how great those pictures are for a certain segment of the world.

I think I'm through talking to you on this topic. You're obviously not going to be swayed by anything as petty as facts, reason, or logic. For crying out loud, you're actually saying "You disproving my nonsense proves my nonsense"!

 

[Kotatsu]

Lots of "Whoosh"ing noise as nearly every "Skeptic" here missed the boat

Let's see if we can use Creationist logic to disprove Evolutionary Theory.

Ah, another graduate of the "don't read before I post" school. "Interesting". However:

No, they don't. That is precisely the problem. Creationists who use arguments of the type "Character X in an extant organism could not possible have evolved, because character Y, which is a necessary prerequisite of X, would not have been useful" or the "What use is half a wing?" type of arguments are not looking for examples of what other "fully formed" organisms with similar characters are using them for. They are looking at a "fully formed" organism with a certain character and asserting that for this lineage, character Y would not have been useful, therefore character X could not have evolved from character Y, therefore the claim that evolution occurred is false.
[parts excised]
ETA: The main difference between actual creationist arguments and the arguments presented by you and the OP is, curiously, that the actual creationists take evolutionary theory into account, whereas you don't.

My objections are based on about 10 years of experience of actually debating this kind of arguments with actual creationists; I know that Dinwar has a similar experience. They are based on the fact that the creationist arguments of this sort are not as simplistic in their structure as what you and the OP assume, and therefore cannot be dismissed or countered by the sort of simplistic answers that are found in the OP.

A creationist context is not a context devoid of internal logic. The problem with many (most?) creationist claims is not that they are invalid, it is that they are not sound. The creationist arguments make sense to them, and could have been true. It just so happens that they do not map onto reality.
That is the fundamental reason why the examples offered in the OP are not counters to actual creationist claims, as the OP is not based on an analysis of how these claims work, or why they fail. They are based entirely on the supposition that the creationist is wrong. That is something that is not, and never was, a given. The fact that creationist claims are wrong had to be established by evidence, logic, and the scientific method.

I did no such thing. It is obvious that these aren't arguments for evolution, but they are also not arguments for creationism, which is what they claim to be. They are, at best, pastiches of creationist arguments set up to be knocked down as easily as possible.

So, it seems that the problem with the OP is that it isn't actually using "creationist logic", but a pastiche of said logic.

Some things are taken WAY too seriously...

And some things are not. Creationism, in this thread, is not taken seriously enough by many of its purported attackers.

@Kotatsu and Dinwar, This answer I gave is fine for a creationist. The pictures from barehl are even better answers for their purposes. You guys should talk to the creationists after the rest of us are done with their simple misconceptions and a handful of them want to go to graduate school in the subject.

They may be fine for some creationists, but laughably inane for other creationists. And most of the time, I find, there is no way to tell beforehand which sort of creationist you are up against.

In any case, I do not agree that presenting a crap case for evolutionary theory is the way to go. If Dinwar and I stand aside and let "the rest of [you]" deal with the smaller misconceptions, as you call them, by replacing them with new misconceptions, they have not come away from the discussion with anything resembling an understanding of what evolutionary theory actually states or implies, or what the evidence for its veracity is. They have had their misconceptions replaced by other misconceptions, which may mean that once they figure out that their new misconceptions are precisely that, they may revert to their old creationist stance, with the difference that they can now honestly state that they were evolutionists once, but then they found the claims of evolutionists are bogus, so they turned again to creationism. This makes it that much harder, when people like Dinwar and I stop standing aside, to actually convince them again. As I've said several times in this thread, the approach you are taking in this line of arguments may be counter-productive.

Putting aside the fact that we're taking some partially humorous material too seriously, you guys just seem to be out of the touch with people with simple misconceptions. A lot of those people aren't going to run to a dictionary every time you guys want to educate them. You guys have a lot of great information, but, for me, listening to your arguments in this particular subject is shining a light on just how great those pictures are for a certain segment of the world.

If your goal is to replace one misconception with another, these pictures are probably fine. If your goal is to actually educate the person with the misconception, they are not. That, unlike the purported context of the OP, is how simple it is. As a teacher in this subject, I do not think that replacing one misconception with another is the correct way to do this.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Ah. I see. Your "proof" amounts to a self-selected subset of Creationists that you've confused for the entire set, coupled with the assumption that two active researchers in relevant fields have never encountered Creationists ourselves.

No. I could have sworn that I already said somewhere that some creationists will respond well to your arguments. If I haven't said it already I've said it now.

No. We simply dislike replacing one misconception with another. We've provided proof that what you're presenting are misconceptions themselves, often worse than the Creationists' misconceptions (both of you are dogmatic fanatics ignorant of the topic at hand, but you proport to be on our side, which hurts my side far more than anything they could do).

Right... I'm doing tremendous damage here. They aren't misconceptions, they are simple answers (and partially jokes). To make them actual misconceptions you and Kotatsu have to read in a lot of details that aren't actually present.

And how exactly does me saying some people need these simple answers, make me ignorant?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

They may be fine for some creationists, but laughably inane for other creationists.

Of course. I thought I'd said this before. I just agreed with this with Dinwar.

In any case, I do not agree that presenting a crap case for evolutionary theory is the way to go.

Where did anyone make a case for evolutionary theory?? That's an example of what I was just saying to Dinwar. The OP doesn't make a case for evolutionary theory. And this point has been repeated several times now.

Bring you arguments to a thread where someone says these are good arguments for evolutionary theory.

 

[Kotatsu]

Of course. I thought I'd said this before. I just agreed with this with Dinwar.

Where did anyone make a case for evolutionary theory?? That's an example of what I was just saying to Dinwar. The OP doesn't make a case for evolutionary theory. And this point has been repeated several times now.

Bring you arguments to a thread where someone says these are good arguments for evolutionary theory.

It seems post 53 was more relevant than I anticipated!

 

[arthwollipot]

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/geology/courses/greenstein/paleo/trilobites.pdf

Above is an example of just how wrong your statement is.

I'm just going to butt in here to say that Richard Fortey's book, Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution, is excellent and I heartily recommend it.

 

[Apathia]

Darn it, Guy's. You sapped all the fun out of it.

Of course, you're right. That's not a crocoduck!

 

[tsig]

Nostalgia? It's not that long ago when it was possible to have good conversations with creationists here, where most of the people involved on both sides of the debate were reasonably educated on the subject (although one side was misguided in their interpretation), and it was actually possible to learn about new things and new arguments for or against creationism here.

In addition, the arguments presented in the OP are crap arguments whether they are joke arguments or not. This does not stop people from using crap arguments like these as if they were good arguments. I object to this, as it demeans my discipline, and do not see any problem with pointing out that in a serious context, these arguments are ridiculous. It is not only the creationist side of this debate where there are multitudes of ill-educated people who more or less repeat arguments they've read somewhere without reflecting over whether these arguments are good or not, and why they are not if they are not.



I hope I never have to move to where you live, and it is apparently IMPOSSIBLE to transition a discussion from a joke to something serious. This attitude must make you the centre of all parties you attend!

Resorting to personal attacks is a sign you have no rational argument left.

 

[tsig]

Kotatsu pointed itt out in detail. Your failure to see is nothing more than willful ignorance at this point.

You know nothing about Creationism, do you? Here's a hint: there is a tradition of scientifically valid Creationist arguments.

Can you present any of those scientifically valid Creationist arguments?

Link?

 

[barehl]

'Where are the trilobites today?"

They became bite sized snacks for giant, unrelated pillbugs?

Bathynomis Giganteus

 

[Craig B]

They became bite sized snacks for giant, unrelated pillbugs?

[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-69vOiVemgnk/UvCKrQV4NdI/AAAAAAAADzo/2ZQFhmhENOs/s1600/A5C0A5A4A5AAA5A6A5B0A5BDA5AFA5E0A5B7_2.jpg[/qimg]

Bathynomis Giganteus
[qimg]http://petslady.com/files/images/isopod.jpg[/qimg]

I didn't believe that till I googled it up. Proves there's no God. No sentient being would create such a monstrosity.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Seems to me some posters have no sense of humour. Plus, I never met any 'scientifically valid Creationist arguments'

 

[Soapy Sam]

I didn't believe that till I googled it up. Proves there's no God. No sentient being would create such a monstrosity.

That's a bit racist. I quite like his t-shirt.


People, I can't help feeling we are over thinking this a bit.

The OP was (to me anyway) clearly a joke, the comment about "using creationist logic" being the whole point of the silly answers.
Now some creationist logic is better than others, just as some non creationist logic is better than others. The good stuff would assuredly tear the OP up fast. But most of what we see is the bad stuff.

While Kotatsu and Dinwar are absolutely right in criticising the examples as a serious response to any serious creationist, the examples are in fact just the sort of daftness that might appeal to many less sophisticated types.

Of course, that's bad science and K & D are holding the line properly by dismissing it as such, but the truth is, damned few creationists or anti Darwinists of any sort are likely to read the papers Dinwar linked to.
Of course, the ones who do are the more interesting ones to talk to, but they are not in the majority.

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately none of these are intermediate forms in the way that creationists would accept (at least not the creationists I've debated this with).

Obviously, since they would accept none.

 

[fishbob]

Let's see if we can use Creationist logic to disprove Evolutionary Theory. Let's start with a common assertion:

Intermediate forms cannot exist because they wouldn't be adapted. Adaptations are only useful in their final form.

1.) Elephants have fully adapted, long trunks. You won't find anything like an elephant with a short trunk.

2.) Giraffes have fully adapted long necks. You won't find anything like a giraffe with a short neck.

3.) Fish are adapted for swimming; salamanders are adapted for walking on land. You won't find anything like a half-fish half-salamander. Let's say it had one pair of legs and a tail how, could it move? If it still had gills, how could it breathe?

4.) Scientists claim that squid evolved from mollusks like snails. Yet, you won't find anything halfway in between a snail and a squid. Imagine a snail with tentacles.

5.) Well, fine, there are animals like this now. But, what evidence is there that they ever existed in the past?

6.) What about trilobites? Scientists claim that these were everywhere in the fossil record. Why aren't they still around?

7.) Well, maybe it works for something simple but it couldn't work for anything complex. There's no way that an animal could gradually develop the ability to fly.

8.) That's only a minor adaptation. Frogs jump and have webbed feet. This one just has bigger webbed feet so that it can go farther.

9.) That couldn't have evolved. There is no intermediate form.

10.) That doesn't count. Lizards have legs; snakes don't. There is nothing in between a lizard and a snake.

11.) You still haven't come up with a crocoduck.

"This is do buch for be" . . . said the elephant's child.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/JustSoStories.jpg

 

[Diogenes]

...
And your experience has been exhaustive, I take it...

I'm not sure you put enough derision in there, try again?

 

[Kotatsu]

Resorting to personal attacks is a sign you have no rational argument left.

Yeah, no it's not. Did you have any rational arguments to bring to the discussion, or was that it?

They became bite sized snacks for giant, unrelated pillbugs?

And, again, this would require justification and as such should not satisfy any creationist that has done any form of study of the arguments of their (or our) side.

While Kotatsu and Dinwar are absolutely right in criticising the examples as a serious response to any serious creationist, the examples are in fact just the sort of daftness that might appeal to many less sophisticated types.

Of course, that's bad science and K & D are holding the line properly by dismissing it as such, but the truth is, damned few creationists or anti Darwinists of any sort are likely to read the papers Dinwar linked to.
Of course, the ones who do are the more interesting ones to talk to, but they are not in the majority.

I really do not see why this matters, and why we should approach the subject differently depending on how sophisticated we perceive the opponent to be.

First of all, that is not always clear initially, and immediately going for the poor responses (like the OP) may open yourself up to precisely the kind of thing that we see creationists doing all the time: continued dismissal of subsequent arguments because "you believe trilobites evolved into horseshoe crabs". Several of the more interesting creationist we've had over the last few years (like Kleinman) were experts at precisely this.

Second, it often has the further effect (again from experience, and Kleinman is an excellent example of this) of the creationist being bombarded by nonsense arguments, and responding to those easy things rather than more sophisticated arguments that some one has actually put time and effort into writing down. Again, this is counter-productive, whether the goal is to convert the creationist, educate the onlookers, or educate yourself in how creationist arguments work.

Dismissing "most creationists" as being less sophisticated in their arguments of beliefs, and saying that the kind of crap arguments against them presented in the OP are "fine" sets a very low standard, especially if, as has been said by several people here now, the majority of them belong to this group. And if this is the normal level of opposition and evidence for the theory of evolution that creationists meet, whether they participate in the discussion or not, they are justified in saying that, in their experience from discussions on the internet, the evidence for evolution is scarce and not very convincing.

It does not matter, in this context, whether the OP was explicitly about "making the case for evolutionary theory" or not. That is a nonsensical argument. If the OP had been the response to an actual creationist, and not just a failure in understanding how creationist logic works, chances are great that that creationist would have perceived it as such anyway, as critiques of creationism on biological grounds typically are. And as the OP fails both as a defense of evolutionary theory and a criticism of creationism, as I've detailed before, it does not really matter what the intent was.

Obviously, since they would accept none.

This is incorrect. I have "converted" several creationists, both on the internet (where it is possible to doubt their sincerity in their conversion) and in real life, where I continued to have contact with these people.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Several of the more interesting creationist we've had over the last few years (like Kleinman) were experts at precisely this.

Earlier you said this guy Kleinman was here about five years ago. You have to go back five years to when we last heard from this type of creationist that we should be gearing our arguments toward? And only that there are "several"? You sure you're in touch with with typical creationists?

Perhaps we could get this, and the "scientifically valid creationist" arguments, tangents split off to another thread or two?

 

[Myriad]

The tapir is not a good reply to the question: what living species represents a transitional form of elephant?

It is, however, a good reply to the question actually raised: what use could a shorter trunk be to a large land animal?

To use a shorter trunk, a hypothetical transitional elephant might also need other differences, so that the trunk could reach the ground. Perhaps shorter or more flexible legs, or a longer head and more flexible neck. Like a tapir has.

And that's part of the point. Even in a so-called transitional form, there's no reason to expect, let alone assume, that the trunk would be the only part that's in transition. What I would call "the isolated-part fallacy" (an elephant's trunk, or a bird's wings, or a lizard's legs, must evolve while the rest of the animal is exactly as it is today) underlies numerous Creationist arguments. It's an inherent fallacious assumption in claims like "an elephant's trunk that's half as long would be useless because it couldn't reach the ground."

Might as well argue that transitional forms of giraffe with shorter necks aren't possible, because their necks would fail to reach their heads.

 

[Correa Neto]

Hmmmm... Transitional... There are some below, I think.









Mind you, only "dead end" species are not transitional forms...