An Exercise In Disproving Evolution

[Kotatsu]

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?

I also pointed out, I believe, that we haven't had any here for a while, yes. Kleinman wasn't the last one, but the use name of the last one I can remember escapes me (his real name was Davison, a biology professor from New England). These are the ones that have made the greatest impression on me in this forum, yes. But I only come back to this forum a few times a year, so I don't know if there have been more here since then. I meet them in other places, generally. I had one living with me every weekend for almost a year, until his girlfriend (whom he lived with during the weeks) threw him out and he gradually became a hare krishna and all my work was undone.

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?

This is not the question actually asked, if we accept the claim that the OP is attempting to use creationist logic. The actual question asked is "What use would half a trunk be to an elephant?" Showing that a "fully formed" trunk is of use to a non-elephant does not answer that question.

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."

Precisely. Or:

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.

Here's an example:
1. Extant elephants are "fully formed".
2. Extant elephants have trunks that reach to the ground as well as to the mouth to drink water.
3. Evolutionists claim that elephants are descended from non-trunked forms.
4. Therefore, under an evolutionary scenario there must have been an organism that is ancestral to extant elephants that had an intermediate trunk.
5. This trunk would not have been able to reach both the ground and the mouth.
6. Therefore, that elephant would not have been able to drink water, unless all other characters (leg size, for instance) were changed simultaneously.
7. Water is essential to all mammals, and there is not reason to believe that ancestral elephants didn't need water.
8. Therefore, if the ancestral elephants couldn't get water through their trunks, only two alternatives exist:
8a. All other relevant morphological characters changed simultaneously.
8b. Elephants always had long trunks that could reach both the ground and the mouth, and evolution never happened.
9. As the chances of 8a being true are laughably small [insert some bogus calculation of how unlikely it is that the correct mutations all happen at the same time, as well as half-understood arguments about "complexity"], 8b must be the correct answer.
10. Therefore evolution is a lie.

This is of course a simplification (as well as being more technical than how these arguments are generally presented). Nevertheless, it shows precisely where the differences between the arguments that are actually made by creationists, and the argument that the OP (and you) imply that creationists do, lie. It also shows precisely why none of the examples of the OP would be counter-arguments to those of the creationists. Showing examples of distantly related taxa having characters that are similar to the intermediate forms implied by evolutionary theory is not satisfactory for either these creationists, nor should they be for people who profess that they understand evolutionary theory well enough to state with some certainty that this theory accurately accounts for the biodiversity of Earth.

The argument outlined above, when presented by actual creationists, fail because they have no understanding of how evolution works. Of course 8a is the most likely scenario, and is the one supported by all manner of evidence. The argument you and the OP imply is a separate one, and one I don't really know what the structure of is.

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.

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

Excellent images, and ones that actually are pertinent to these questions. Where is the first one from?

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

I disagree slightly, in that I believe that extant species are also not technically transitional forms, in that they do not yet have descendants (and may never have), so they are not transitional yet. Provided they don't become dead end species, they will be, of course.

 

[Correa Neto]

Excellent images, and ones that actually are pertinent to these questions. Where is the first one from?

Thanks.
Source:
http://coastalpaleo.blogspot.com.br/2013_12_01_archive.html
You'll have to scroll down to about 1/2 the page.

OT ETA stuff- I used these images a couple of times in the classroom. Most students have no issues with the whales and birds and become rather surprised to see all those intermediate forms - especially the whales. But our own specie's ancestry line seems to annoy some of them...

I disagree slightly, in that I believe that extant species are also not technically transitional forms, in that they do not yet have descendants (and may never have), so they are not transitional yet. Provided they don't become dead end species, they will be, of course.

Ah, well, that's true. We can't actually be sure about those living nowadays. Many may become dead ends in the future.

 

[Diogenes]

Shouldn't we have a dotted line or something to indicate the evidence we have for Neaderthal (and others) interbreeding with sapiens?

 

[Correa Neto]

Most likely.

It would, however complicate a lot the graphs. Note also that particular chart is not very new or accepted by all paleoanthropologists.

But I can already imagine the thoughts of some people if interbreeding is added. "MY ANCESTORS WERE NOT APES AND NEVER MADE SEX WITH LOWLY CREATURES SUCH AS APES. Mind you, theres that story about Uncle Willie and his sheep, but sheep are fluffy and cute. And Uncle Willie is not my ancestor, anyway..."

 

[barehl]

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.

Creationwiki:

The creationists believe that the Trilobites became extinct because of Noah's flood, they think that their bodies were to small and weak to curl up and defend themselves from the rough seas.

Most people think that the Trilobite is a very simple creature but it is not in fact. It is a very complex creature, especially it's eye which is so complex that it could not have evolved, especially since there are no transitional fossils that indicate an evolution. This goes to show that it must have had a Creator. This has only been discovered a couple years ago. Evolutionists try to say that now the creatures are getting more and more complex and complicated as life goes on, but really it already had started out that way.
Kurt Wise believes that the best extra-biblical evidence for creation would come from the design of a Trilobite eye and that this creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the reason of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye.

 

[Kotatsu]

Creationwiki:

The creationists believe that the Trilobites became extinct because of Noah's flood, they think that their bodies were to small and weak to curl up and defend themselves from the rough seas.

Most people think that the Trilobite is a very simple creature but it is not in fact. It is a very complex creature, especially it's eye which is so complex that it could not have evolved, especially since there are no transitional fossils that indicate an evolution. This goes to show that it must have had a Creator. This has only been discovered a couple years ago. Evolutionists try to say that now the creatures are getting more and more complex and complicated as life goes on, but really it already had started out that way.
Kurt Wise believes that the best extra-biblical evidence for creation would come from the design of a Trilobite eye and that this creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the reason of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye.

And your picture of an entirely separate kind of organism, the horseshoe crab, fit into this narrative how?

 

[marplots]

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

[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/naoexistemfosseistransicionais_zps063d1a25.jpg[/qimg]
Mind you, only "dead end" species are not transitional forms...

How'd they get all those animals to face to the left to take the pictures? I'm thinking there might be a small bit of photoshop going on.

 

[truethat]

I cannot believe people are posting pictures of animals that look the same and ignoring taxonomy. Just as stupid as YECs posting drawings of dragons as proof that Dinosaurs walked with humans

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I cannot believe people are posting pictures of animals that look the same and ignoring taxonomy. Just as stupid as YECs posting drawings of dragons as proof that Dinosaurs walked with humans

Not if the misconception being addressed isn't related to taxonomy.

 

[DC]

I cannot believe people are posting pictures of animals that look the same and ignoring taxonomy. Just as stupid as YECs posting drawings of dragons as proof that Dinosaurs walked with humans

lol , everbody knows Dragons fly.....

 

[Dinwar]

I cannot believe people are posting pictures of animals that look the same and ignoring taxonomy.

Well, phylogeny anyway.

Just as stupid as YECs posting drawings of dragons as proof that Dinosaurs walked with humans

Oddly enough, dragons show transitional forms. If you look through Medieval art, you can see dragons changing from stylized large lizards (monitor lizards or similar), to fire-breathing lizards, to fire-breathing lizards with wings, to large fire-breathing lizards with wings (with various offshoots). Dragons, weridly, evolved.

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.

It's self-defeating.

Ever try to take out an ant hill? I've lived in the South; I've tried to eradicate fire ant mounts. The thing is, you DO NOT and CANNOT wipe out an ant hill by stepping on the ants. It just doesn't work. You have to go to the source--you have to kill the queen, or kill enough of the ants that the queen can't survive (which necessitates something ohter than stepping on each one individually).

Creationists are similar. There are two flavors of Creationists: frauds and dupes. The dupes--the standard Creationist--is simply parroting the party line without giving it much thought. They read a few Creationist books, maybe visit a few Creationist websites, but in general they are not originating these ideas. They are worker ants--they are symptomatic. Trying to destroy Creationism by attacking the dupes is akin to trying to wipe out a fire ant mound by stepping on the ants one by one. The real threat is the frauds, the ones originating the ideas. They know better for the most part, and those who don't lack the knowledge because they willfully refuse to examine it. They're the ones writing the books, and making the websites like CreationWiki and the like. They are the queen ants; they are the disease.

Given the above model, if we wish to use the logic of the dupes we can simply link to references we consider reliable. That's what they do. They are mistaken about the quality of the references, but from their perspective they are citing valid and accurate references.

If we wish to use the logic of the former....well, ironically this thread is a perfect example. Not the OP; that's been shown to be a deeply flawed characterization of the logic. Rather, the ensuing conversation in which those offering correction have been demonized and attacked for offering corrections.

Those are of course the non-scientific Creationists; there are, as I'll discuss below, a few different breeds.

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.

History is on your side here. Creationism was a valid scientific theory until extremely recently--about a hundred years ago or so, LONG after Darwinian evolution was proposed. They made specific criticisms against the various types of evolution, and made specific predictions that were actually born out (for example, they proposed that organisms don't go extinct, they merely move to less-suitable habitat, and found that this is in fact the case with numerous groups). These folks were proven wrong. Most of them accepted that their theory was wrong.

The problem is, again, we're dealing with multiple groups under one umbrella term here, and many are mistakenly assuming traits that exist in one are applicable to all. Nothing could be further from the truth. One can be a full-blown Creationist and still operate scientifically, though it's become extremely hard at this point and I'd say it's only possible at the begining of one's scientific investigation of the topic.

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.

I've found it to be otherwise. We have two obviously biased samples saying different htings; it's hard to find a way to reconcile this.

Not impossible, though: http://ncse.com/media/cej

It's defunct now, but it demonstrates that there are ways to approach this question rigorously and scientifically.

 

[Kotatsu]

I cannot believe people are posting pictures of animals that look the same and ignoring taxonomy. Just as stupid as YECs posting drawings of dragons as proof that Dinosaurs walked with humans

I can't believe I am saying this, but in these cases, it is totally fine to ignore taxonomy. Taxonomy isn't the issue here, as taxonomy is only the field of study that concerns the valid names of taxa. Taxonomy as such does not concern itself with evolution (it is hypothesis free, as some people put it), meaning that whatever process has produced biodiversity, we can use taxonomy to put names on the taxa we know about. ETA: Indeed, if the creationists were correct, taxonomy would be one of the branches of biology that will remain unaffected!

We can then use systematics to arrange these in a useful order. In modern science that order is determined by phylogeny and thus by evolution, but it is possible to have a scientifically valid classification that ignores evolution, as long as you make clear what the criteria for your classification is. For instance, it is perfectly valid to arrange marine invertebrates into benthic fauna, epifauna, and meiofauna, as these categories are likely to be subject to very different selection pressures (1).

Each proposed order of taxa is a distinct classification. Classification is also the word for the process of systematising taxa, which is one of the reasons these terms are confusing. Here is how I see it:

- Nomenclature = the rules for creating a valid name of a taxon (this is governed by the ICZN for animals)
- Taxonomy = the actual valid names of taxa and the study of whether a given name is valid or not
- Systematics = the arrangement of taxa into a particular order following some criteria
- Classification = a particular ordering of taxa
- Phylogeny = a hypothesis on the actual relationships between taxa through time

In the present case, barehl and others are perfectly fine in ignoring nomenclature and taxonomy. The problems arise when phylogeny is ignored, and that implies that systematics is ignored, which in turn implies that classification is ignored. That is the basis for why it is not valid to show a picture of a tapir as a response to the challenge that you will never be able to find something like an elephant with a short trunk, but it may be valid to show a picture of Moeritherium. Whether or not it is is a question of phylogeny, which in this case becomes a question of palaeontological evidence for the putative lineage that connects Moeritherium with extant elephants.

---
(1) So I guess it doesn't ignore evolution at all, but it is at least independent of phylogeny.

 

[Kotatsu]

Given the above model, if we wish to use the logic of the dupes we can simply link to references we consider reliable. That's what they do. They are mistaken about the quality of the references, but from their perspective they are citing valid and accurate references.

Precisely. This is one of the many reasons I believe the approach taken by the OP, and subsequently by others in this thread, is counter-productive. Whether we are directly addressing an actual creationist, attempting to convert him/her, or trying to kick (pull?) some of the fence-sitters off the fence and into the correct pasture, the quality of arguments against creationism and (implicitly) for evolution are critical. If the arguments a creationist of your first sort see from people who are defending evolution are of the sort presented in the OP, i.e. low-quality and supposedly meant to mock them, I do not believe this will in any way be very helpful either in convincing the poorly-read creationists or present a good case that they are wrong (and implicitly that evolution is correct) to onlookers.

And despite protestations to the contrary, if we are too use the logic inherent in creationist thought, purporting to show counter-examples to their challenges is precisely "defending the theory of evolution". These people don't present their arguments, regardless of quality, in the expectation that if they are shown to be wrong, the alternative is that we have no idea how biodiversity came about. The alternative is evolution. That is what they are attacking, and when you counter their attacks, you are defending the theory of evolution, whether this is explicit or not.

It therefore becomes a question of reliability and sophistication. If we can convince the lower-quality creationists of your first category that our sources are more trustworthy than theirs, there is a chance of us winning them over. This does happen. But if they read things like the OP (and the defense thereof) and then find out that no, the examples presented are actually not at all what what evolutionary theory would have us expect, that makes the source less reliable -- or outright unreliable. That, in turn, may make it much harder to convince these people again. Worse, it gives them the opportunity of using the old "I was an evolutionist once, but then I looked into the evidence for evolution and found that it didn't hold up" card, and actually be correct. This is generally very dispiriting.

 

[Diogenes]

I cannot believe people are posting pictures of animals that look the same and ignoring taxonomy. Just as stupid as YECs posting drawings of dragons as proof that Dinosaurs walked with humans

To be honest I thought that was the heart of the OP's parody; complete with over-the-top rhetoric. Subsequent posts proved this incorrect.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I've found it to be otherwise. We have two obviously biased samples saying different htings; it's hard to find a way to reconcile this.

Not impossible, though: http://ncse.com/media/cej

It's defunct now, but it demonstrates that there are ways to approach this question rigorously and scientifically.

Bookmarked anyway, thanks.

 

[barehl]

Northwest Creation Network
Apologetics Symposium
July 2014

1. The earth was shaped by flood waters which formed features that cannot be explained by planetary scientists.
   a. The claim that there is no evidence for a flood is 50 years out of date.
   b. Scientists who claim this use straw-man arguments and are intellectually dishonest.
   c. Uniformitarianism is false.
   d. The flood waters receded when the mountains rose because of uplift.
   e. The Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming show a change in elevation of 45,000 feet.
   f. The ocean basins also sank.
   g. Guyots show that the ocean sank 5,000 feet.
2. There is evidence of massive runoff.
   The San Rafael Swell shows evidence of 16,400 feet of erosion over the Colorado Plateau.
   The Appalachians have eroded 21,000 feet.
   The Rockey Mountains have eroded 6,500 feet.
   The Flinders Range in Australia eroded 20,000 feet.
   The Flood removed roughly 2 miles of sediment.
   Devil's Tower is proof of a rapid flood. It would be impossible for the surrounding sediments to erode over millions of years and leave the core. So, it must have happened quickly.
   Monument Valley in Utah is further proof of rapid flooding.
3. The sediments from this massive erosion formed the continental shelf.
   All continents are surrounded by sedimentary rock.
   The continental shelf cannot be explained by science. The Flood is the only viable explanation.
4. The flooding stage with water moving inland took 150 days. The retreating phase with water running off the rising land took from day 151 to day 360 so this process was completed in 1 year.
   The Cypress Hills in Saskatchewan are proof of a massive flood. They have deposits of rounded rocks 75 feet thick from 230 miles away.
   The water must have been flowing at least 65 mph and had to be at least 180 feet deep.
   Since this is twice the speed of any known flash-flood, it cannot have been formed by processes seen today.
   There are similar erosion features seen at the Grand Canyon, the Piedmont, and in Montana.
   When inclined layers of harder and softer rock are eroded to the same elevation, that is proof of a massive flood because processes we see today would wear the softer layers deeper.
   Quartzite rocks have been spread hundreds of miles from their source in the Rocky Mountains.
   Rounded quartzite boulders on Lookout Mountain in Oregon are proof of Flood because that is 8,200 feet above sea level.
   These rocks have been found in Manitoba, 800 miles from the source.
   You can find them on top of the Teton Mountains.
   These rounded rocks could only have been formed by water and there is no source flowing water this high in the mountains. So, it is proof of massive flooding. The rocks were formed during the Flood and then uplifting raised them to the current level.
5. Water and wind gaps cannot be formed by current observable processes.
   Water always flows to the lowest level which is not the case with water and wind gaps.
   Zagros Mountains are mysterious in terms of scientific explanation.
   These gaps were formed by high speed water flows during the later stages of runoff after the Flood.
   Pediments are examples of Flood action. No scientific theory explains these.
6. The mountains could have rose rapidly due to thermal expansion or due to rebound because of meteor impacts during the Flood.
7. Ice cores do not form in layers. They are improperly dated by making spurious comparisons of isotope ratios.
   No ice core is older than 4,500 years old. 90% of the ice was due to an ice age following the Flood.
8. Carlsbad Caverns were formed rapidly by sulfuric acid.

The material is consistent with that of Answers In Genesis. It is also referenced on Creationwiki.

 

[Kotatsu]

The material is consistent with that of Answers In Genesis. It is also referenced on Creationwiki.

Interesting. I think if you send them a picture of a sand castle, that will probably be fine. That'll convince them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Interesting. I think if you send them a picture of a sand castle, that will probably be fine. That'll convince them.

How is that different from you approach?

 

[Kotatsu]

How is that different from you approach?

My approach? When it comes to geology, I don't have an approach, as I don't know geology well enough to make any statements with confidence. So the differences would be significant.

 

[Dinwar]

My approach involves candy. Students learn the lesson better when they can eat it. One of the proudest moments I had as a teacher was the student saying "No, wait, remember the Snicker's bar? Those rocks have to be older, because they're inside this other one!"