Evolution answers

[foophil]

I have a friend I've grown up with who I often admired in the past. He has really turned to the far right over time though (didn't believe in man-made global warming, believes in some conspiracies). I've changed his mind on the global warming issue after presenting a lot of evidence (gathered from skepticalscience.com), but he still doesn't believe in the theory of Evolution. He has presented me with his reasons why, and I feel that with a strong enough argument, I may be able to pursuade him to join the majority (in the science community at least - not necessarily US citizens sadly) in believing in evolution.

I'll present his points that he thinks are against it, and my current responses that I haven't give him yet. I figured this would be a good time to introduce myself to the forums which I've been following for about a year now. While there are a lot of other posts in the forums on the theory of Evolution, I was hoping it would be okay to create one here to help me debate this person. Here is what he had to say:

"1) Charles Darwin had no idea about genetics. His evolutionary tree was based merely upon appearance of the animal. Whatever something most appeared like, was (naturally to Darwin) what it "evolved" from. We now know this to be completely bogus due to advances in genetic understanding and gene mapping. So the original theory was an invention or a logical fallacy...

2) There is not ONE missing link between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee since Darwin was going by appearance and not genetic similarities) but there are BILLIONS of missing links between each distinct species. IN FACT, what the "evolutionary tree" sows is the OPPOSITE of evolution. It shows that species are distinct, NOT that one species leads to another. Where are the billions of missing links between each and every species? And not just a billion years ago, but TODAY?

3) Natural Selection. People who subscribe to the theory of evolution usually mistake natural selection as a process of evolution. This is patently FALSE as natural selection EXCLUDES genetic material,m it does NOT introduce unique genetic material. Natural Selection is the OPPOSITE of evolution. Natural selection CULLS genes, evolution would require NOVEL genes.

4) So far the only way, other than in comic books, we know of mutations is through accidents resulting in inferior gens. (Which are then REMOVED by natural selection.) Exposure to harmful environmental events - radiation, poisons, toxins, create mutation. And these mutations are HARMFUL and often leave the recipient unable to survive or reproduce, or less able to do either. So mutation is, again, contrary to evolution, NOT a contributor to it.

5) Species. Another aspect of distinct species, which being distinct already tend to disprove evolution, is that species generally are incompatible with each other. You cannot mate distinct species with each other. In the very few cases you can, the offspring is usually STERILE. So you cannot get evolution by reproduction between species.

In short, the very distinct species ARE NOT proof of evolution, but tends to DISPROVE evolution. Natural Selection does the OPPOSITE of what evolution would need to do. Mutation is almost exclusively HARMFUL and subsequently removed by natural selection. Species cannot interbreed. EVERYTHING touted by evolution proponents as an aspect of evolution is actually the OPPOSITE and tends to disprove evolution, not prove it.

Evolution is a plain BAD theory invented by someone who was going merely on outward appearance of animals, and had zero clue about DNA. It's proponents use the very things which tend to DISPROVE evolution, in an unscientific way to explain something ridiculous with logical fallacies.

NOTHING supports this theory, everything given as support tends to disprove it, not prove it."

Here are my current responses that I've not given him. I've had to modify some of the website links since I think my post count will prevent me from linking them on here:

"1) Mostly correct. I'm not sure how this disproves the current theory of Evolution though. It has morphed and changed as we've discovered more about it through testing. Genetics have opened up a whole world showing how some animals first thought to be directly related weren't, and how others were. Animals first thought completely unrelated turned out to be directly so through genetic research for instance. Also, which logical fallacy are you talking about? There are lots, and I don't see one that matches your complaint here. (Links to owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/)


2) I pulled this from talkorigins.org which says it better than I can: "Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant."

I can provide links if you wish. Your argument supports the current theory of Evolution. Again, you seem to be stuck trying to disprove the orignal, older version(s) of the theory of Evolution. Evolution doesn't happen in huge, obvious steps (most of the time).

3) Sort of true, but you seem confused here. Mutation of genetic material happens through a number of differnet ways. This explains it in an easy to understand way here:

(Links to ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation)

That of course is not the definition of natural selection. What natural selection does (and thereby evolution is based off of) is to cull out the mutations that are not benefitial. They are not one and the same, nor do most biologists think they are. Natural selection is simply the mechanism behind the theory of Evolution. It does indeed cull genes that are not a benefit to the species, and helps to keep the genes that, through mutation, do provide a benefit.

4) You seem to agree with me here in my response to your point 3, so that is a good thing. You aren't exactly correct in terms of mutations being bad. The vast majority of mutations are flat out not even noticed. It is through the accumulation of many, smaller mutations (again, there are exceptions) that natural selection can start to play a role in whether they are over all a benefit or a hinderance. And while environmental events can cause mutations, some happen simply when cells divide naturally. This explains most of it in detail:

(linkn to nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127)

Again, this isn't contrary to the current theory of Evolution like you seem to think. It is exactly how it is supposed to work.

5) Species being different disproving the theory of Evolution is the most absurd argument you've presented so far. You do realise that, aside from humans and a few others species out there, most are stuck to very small, specific areas (without human intervention), and therefore don't breed with each other on a global scale right? When species get separated by barriers for long periods, they evolve away from each other. Sometimes those mutations we spoke of above prevent them from interbreeding and making viable offspring (or any offspring at all). This is a known fact, and has been demonstrated in actual experiments. So your argument here actually supports the current theory of Evolution.

And if evolution is a bad theory, please present one that is better and has evidence that supports it."

Thoughts?

 

[foophil]

Oh, and here was a reply from another creationist shortly after his:

"I am in agreement with you Michael, and *(my name removed here for privacy)* ask yourself this. Do animals and insects evolve from one creature into another creature or do animals adapt to their environment? I know that your going to say that adapting is the same thing as evolving, but it isn't. As for the animals on the list above, most of these animals have similar diets, amd look similar. That just means that the animal has only a few possible food choices in their habitat. Phil, you of all people should know that wikipedia is an unreliable source."

The link he refers to is this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution

I think I'll explain how Wiki is an excellent source when discussing topics that are widely accepted as fact. Also, that link has literally hundreds of links to the actual articles discussing each example.

 

[Hokulele]

For number 5, give him a link to a description of ring species. I am on my phone right now, or I would give you a sample.

 

[foophil]

For number 5, give him a link to a description of ring species. I am on my phone right now, or I would give you a sample.

This sums up ring species nicely, and has examples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[Dinwar]

"1) Charles Darwin had no idea about genetics. His evolutionary tree was based merely upon appearance of the animal. Whatever something most appeared like, was (naturally to Darwin) what it "evolved" from. We now know this to be completely bogus due to advances in genetic understanding and gene mapping. So the original theory was an invention or a logical fallacy...

This is actually an argument FOR evolution's validity. Multiple independent lines of evidence lead to the same conclusion. Morphological similarity (which is MUCH more complex than implied by "whatever something most appeared like") is one such line of evidence. The justifications for it are obvious: evolution only had the parent speceis' traits to work with.

Secondly, this was a major criticism leveled against Darwin's theory over a hundred years ago. Since then, we've resolved the issue. Evolutionary theory is no longer Darwinism (so named to differentiate it from other contemporary evolutionary theories). I forget the official name for the current paradigm, but it's definitely come a long way since Darwin's time. Criticizing Darwin in an attempt to disprove evolutionary theory is akin to criticizing Newton in an attempt to disprove modern physics: science hasn't sat still, and we're FAR beyond what those gentlemen provided us with.

2) There is not ONE missing link between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee since Darwin was going by appearance and not genetic similarities) but there are BILLIONS of missing links between each distinct species.

Basically what this is saying is that he demands every single organism that existed during every speciation event before he'd accept it. This is dishonest nonsense, of course; speciation events are geologically fast, and there are numerous processes (termed taphonomy) that remove most organisms from the fossil record. That we have fossils AT ALL is actually pretty amazing. That said, we DO have fossils from within speciation events, and modern intermediate forms.

It shows that species are distinct, NOT that one species leads to another.

Actual research--such as the ring species mentioned up-thread, dog breeds, etc.--shows that species are only distinct after the speciation events. Prior to and during such events, populations can differentiate and recombine in all sorts of fun ways.

Where are the billions of missing links between each and every species? And not just a billion years ago, but TODAY?

As I said, this is a ridiculous and flagrantly dishonest claim. It ignores pretty much everything about biology and paleontology. I must also point out that many times, we DO have "missing links" (more properly termed intermediate forms) today. Many of the intermediate forms died out; most species died out, so it's hardly surprising that a lot of intermediate forms get caught up in that. But organisms such as the platipus, the echidna, reptiles, certain types of legless lizards and snakes, and many other intermediate forms do exist. They went off on their own, forming new branches of evolution.

That's something that your friend is ignoring: evolution isn't a ladder, it's a bush. Everything is evolving constantly, and not towards humanity or any other ideal form. They're each evolving in their own directions.

3) Natural Selection. People who subscribe to the theory of evolution usually mistake natural selection as a process of evolution. This is patently FALSE as natural selection EXCLUDES genetic material,m it does NOT introduce unique genetic material. Natural Selection is the OPPOSITE of evolution. Natural selection CULLS genes, evolution would require NOVEL genes.

Technically, this is true. Natural selection is a culling process, and most advocates of evolutionary theory are deplorably sloppy in theiri discussion of the terms. However, there are a myriad of ways by which new genes can arise, so this isn't much of an issue. Ironically enough, to use this as an argument against evolution is to equate natural selection with evolution itself--the very sin he's accusing others of making!

4) So far the only way, other than in comic books, we know of mutations is through accidents resulting in inferior gens.

This is simply false. de Vrise's experiments with primroses show numerous mutations, some of which are advantageous, some of which are detrimental, and most of which are neutral. Blue eyes are another mutation that obviously isn't detrimental. Nylonase' key mutation is obviously advantageous. And so on. Also, the term "inferior" is very loaded, and generally not used by any researchers.

Secondly, biology is complex. Anything that helps in one way, probably hurts in another. It's a cost/benefit thing. Sometimes the new mutation helps--if something resulted in eliminating the webbing between our fingers, or something silly like that, it wouldn't have a huge impact on us, so the mutation may help. If it resulted in increased strain on the heart, or weakening of the blood vessel walls, it'd be much more detrimental. Pale skin is like that--it helps generate Vitamin D more efficiently, but is less efficient at preventing skin cancer.

5) Species. Another aspect of distinct species, which being distinct already tend to disprove evolution, is that species generally are incompatible with each other. You cannot mate distinct species with each other. In the very few cases you can, the offspring is usually STERILE. So you cannot get evolution by reproduction between species.

First, this happens all the time in plants--differnet species hybredize, making a new species. In fact, the concept of species is generally only useful in animals; once you get outside Kingdom Animalia, you run into SERIOUS trouble making the concept work.

Secondly, no one ever argued that animals speciate via hybredization. There are numerous ways for animals to speciate, but the most common is alopatric speciation: geographic separation over time.

Do animals and insects evolve from one creature into another creature or do animals adapt to their environment? I know that your going to say that adapting is the same thing as evolving, but it isn't.

They do both. They adapt AND speciate. Take fruit flies in Hawaii--they adapted to the new islands, and that adaptation eventually was so great that we call it speciation. In contrast, adaptation of, say, some dog breeds isn't sufficient ot prevent interbreeding, and isn't speciation. North American bison adapted wholesale, and are an example of a chronospecies (Pliestocene bison are morphologically distinct from modern bison, to the point where they're called a different species, but we can't test reproductive success because the ancient bison are all dead).

In short, this isn't an either/or question. They do both. Both ARE forms of evolution--it's a typical Creationist tactic, and a deeply dishonest one, to keep the definition of "evolution" vague, allowing them to change it at will. For example, here the person is using evolution to mean only speciation, something that no researcher has ever intended.

Second, the bit about "from one creature into another" is quite revealing. This usually is an indication that they're talking about MODERN creatures--say, a dog giving birth to a cat. This is not what evolution argues. Habitat change does cause speciation--the rise of new species, not moving from one modern species to another.

Frankly, rather than arguing with these people I'd find a cheap university textbook on evolution and simply hand it to them. They obviously know nothing about modern evolutionary theory, and I doubt that the second person is honest enough to be willing to learn.

 

[Mojo]

Oh, and here was a reply from another creationist shortly after his:

"I am in agreement with you Michael, and *(my name removed here for privacy)* ask yourself this. Do animals and insects evolve from one creature into another creature or do animals adapt to their environment? I know that your going to say that adapting is the same thing as evolving, but it isn't. As for the animals on the list above, most of these animals have similar diets, amd look similar. That just means that the animal has only a few possible food choices in their habitat. Phil, you of all people should know that wikipedia is an unreliable source."

The link he refers to is this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution

I think I'll explain how Wiki is an excellent source when discussing topics that are widely accepted as fact. Also, that link has literally hundreds of links to the actual articles discussing each example.

And that's the point of Wikipedia - every statement should be referenced by a reliable source, preferably as a link that can be followed so you can see for yourself what it says.

The idea of creationists complaining that something is an unreliable source has set off my irony meter, by the way.

 

[Mojo]

I must also point out that many times, we DO have "missing links" (more properly termed intermediate forms) today. Many of the intermediate forms died out; most species died out, so it's hardly surprising that a lot of intermediate forms get caught up in that. But organisms such as the platipus, the echidna, reptiles, certain types of legless lizards and snakes, and many other intermediate forms do exist. They went off on their own, forming new branches of evolution.

That's something that your friend is ignoring: evolution isn't a ladder, it's a bush.

And what are usually termed "missing links" are not, as the creationists demand, links directly "between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee...)" but common ancestors of man and ape, or man and chimpanzee.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'll have my own 2 cents on answering each, when I have time.

But, I always like to emphasize two things that Creationists can't:

A. Productivity! The attitude of "Let's figure out HOW this could have evolved by natural processes" is always going to yield MORE information about life, than the attitude of "Evolution is impossible!". And, that's really what science is all about!

B. Practical Applications: The theory of Evolution, even with all of its 'warts', is still reliable and accurate enough that it can be used to solve real problems in the various fields of biology.
Lots of examples on this page: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=15

Creationism, on the other hand, can not seem to yield any practical applications, at all. Why is that?

 

[Cuddles]

"1) Charles Darwin had no idea about genetics. His evolutionary tree was based merely upon appearance of the animal. Whatever something most appeared like, was (naturally to Darwin) what it "evolved" from. We now know this to be completely bogus due to advances in genetic understanding and gene mapping. So the original theory was an invention or a logical fallacy...

"1) Mostly correct. I'm not sure how this disproves the current theory of Evolution though. It has morphed and changed as we've discovered more about it through testing. Genetics have opened up a whole world showing how some animals first thought to be directly related weren't, and how others were. Animals first thought completely unrelated turned out to be directly so through genetic research for instance.

I disagree a bit with your answer here. We now know morphology to be far from the whole story, but it's still a very useful tool and not even close to "complete bogus". Things like bone shape still play a huge part in identifying and classifying animals. Genetic and other information are also important when available, but for the majority of fossils appearance is all you can ever have.

And even when available, for the most part genetics has given us relatively minor adjustments rather than overthrowing whole swathes of previous classifications. For example, we now know that killer whales are more closely related to snubfin dolphins than they are pygmy killer whales, but we haven't suddenly decided they're sharks rather than toothed whales. Just by looking at the appearance of things, we get a pretty accurate idea of which ones are more similar to each other. Modern techniques might shuffle things around within a group a bit, but it's quite rare for more major reorganisations to take place.

So your friend isn't really mostly correct at all. He's correct that Darwin didn't know about DNA, but he's completely wrong that this actually matters at all. Darwin built his theory around real evidence using techniques and reasoning that are still useful today. That we have now added even more lines of evidence, that sometimes contradict but more usually just refine that reasoning, doesn't mean anything for the theory as a whole.

I'd say the rest of your answers are spot on.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Talkorigins has lots of answers, as well - well worth browsing. (http://talkorigins.org/)

ETA: oh, and...Tiktaalik! discovered because scientists thought it should be there, predicted before discovery.

 

[Dinwar]

Wowbagger, I disagree completely with your arguments. The reason to accept evolution is because IT'S TRUE. The fact that it's productive in answering questions and has practical applications stem from that. Your emphasis on productivity, here and elsewhere, paints science in a light that I do not agree with--and one which hands FAR too many arguments to Creationists.

Evolution should be accepted because it is true. Full stop. Any side benefits are just that--side benefits. Science is about finding out the truth about reality, not merely making up ideas to help us answer questions or finding ways to build better mousetraps.

 

[pgwenthold]

And what are usually termed "missing links" are not, as the creationists demand, links directly "between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee...)" but common ancestors of man and ape, or man and chimpanzee.

Can I point out that, by definition, we CANNOT have found "missing links"? Because if we did, they wouldn't be missing....

Therefore, the claim that "There is not ONE missing link between man and ape" is really funny. He is actually saying that ALL the links are not missing.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I disagree a bit with your answer here. We now know morphology to be far from the whole story, but it's still a very useful tool and not even close to "complete bogus".

Aren't you giving a bit too much credit to creationist disparaging of morphology? Especially for creatures us humans are most directly familiar with it gets you very close to the correct family tree. IMO it's much more accurate to say it's very nearly the whole story.

To the OP: If this guy has managed not to hear the answers to his questions already you have to be prepared for the possibility that you are going to be frustrated when he refuses to hear them again.

Think about creationist denial that new traits can ever appear. Even though it's only recently been understood in any detail how they happen, the fact that new traits occasionally show up has literally been known since pre-history.

 

[Dinwar]

ETA: oh, and...Tiktaalik! discovered because scientists thought it should be there, predicted before discovery.

That happens FAR more often than Creationists realize. My brother-in-law and I both have found previously hypothesized organisms, and while it was very cool for us it wasn't earth-shattering. My brother-in-law was volunteering in a lab in college, and mine was part of grad school. We've even gone so far as to be able to map out how organisms speciate through time--Feldmann and Schweitzer drafted a report about decapod evolution from Europe, through Greenland and Iceland, and down the eastern coast of the Americas. It's not entirely clear why that happens (or wasn't, last time I checked), but it's pretty clear THAT it happens. When you get to the point where you can accurately predict general trends in predicting of where new species can be found, it's safe to say you can predict new speceis pretty accurately.

It even happened with Darwin himself. He hypothesized that birds evolved from reptiles, given their morphology. Then they found Archaeopteryx, an animal that would have been classified as a reptile had it not had fully-developed flight feathers.

 

[Dinwar]

Aren't you giving a bit too much credit to creationist disparaging of morphology? Especially for creatures us humans are most directly familiar with it gets you very close to the correct family tree. IMO it's much more accurate to say it's very nearly the whole story.

There are some very real issues with morphology. For example, it's often difficult to differentiate things that adapted and things that are structural necessities. Ontogeny can also play tricks on you, as the whole Triceratops thing neatly illustrates. Sexual dimorphism is also problematic--ask any ammonite researcher! Then there's the question of how much is enough. Lumpers and splitters view the world very differently. I think we're in a splitting phase just now, though we could be swinging the other way.

Still, there are some real benefits. DNA isn't a magic bullet. Most researchers use only a small number of genes during any phylogenetic analysis, and different genes can yield different results. Morphology provides a sampling of the entire genome. Plus, as Cuddles said, it's all we've got for the vast majority of life's history; you can't get DNA from a pyrite-replaced brachiopod. So we do the best we can, and develop techniques for fixing any errors we discover.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

2) There is not ONE missing link between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee since Darwin was going by appearance and not genetic similarities) but there are BILLIONS of missing links between each distinct species. IN FACT, what the "evolutionary tree" sows is the OPPOSITE of evolution. It shows that species are distinct, NOT that one species leads to another. Where are the billions of missing links between each and every species? And not just a billion years ago, but TODAY?

"Okay, if you claim descent from Adam I want to see the skeletons of every singled ancestor between him and you. No gaps. If you can't do this then I declare you to not be human."

 

[Hokulele]

This is simply false. de Vrise's experiments with primroses show numerous mutations, some of which are advantageous, some of which are detrimental, and most of which are neutral. Blue eyes are another mutation that obviously isn't detrimental. Nylonase' key mutation is obviously advantageous. And so on. Also, the term "inferior" is very loaded, and generally not used by any researchers.

Secondly, biology is complex. Anything that helps in one way, probably hurts in another. It's a cost/benefit thing. Sometimes the new mutation helps--if something resulted in eliminating the webbing between our fingers, or something silly like that, it wouldn't have a huge impact on us, so the mutation may help. If it resulted in increased strain on the heart, or weakening of the blood vessel walls, it'd be much more detrimental. Pale skin is like that--it helps generate Vitamin D more efficiently, but is less efficient at preventing skin cancer.

An even better example is the mutation that causes sickle cell.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...g-mechanisms-of-evolutionary-adaptation-34539

To summarize, possibly too much, the way malaria infects a host is through the red blood cells. In certain malaria-prone regions of the world, mutations have arisen where red blood cells can "sickle" (essentially collapse), which incidentally prevents malaria infection. However, the sickling causes other serious issues, so to call it strictly a harmful or beneficial mutation is false. It is both, but since it allows the person to live long enough to reproduce, where malaria would often kill them before adulthood, natural selection favors it.

We see it is evidence natural selection works, and not just always in weeding out the "bad" mutations, because the same type of mutation has been preserved by natural selection in different populations.

 

[Aridas]

I'm a bit tired so these will be brief, but maybe a little helpful.

"1) Charles Darwin had no idea about genetics. His evolutionary tree was based merely upon appearance of the animal. Whatever something most appeared like, was (naturally to Darwin) what it "evolved" from. We now know this to be completely bogus due to advances in genetic understanding and gene mapping. So the original theory was an invention or a logical fallacy...

Darwin indeed had no idea about genetics, but the original theory was, frankly, a theory, and did not specify cause, as I recall. "Invention" might work, barely, though I seem to recall that similar concepts proposed long before Darwin. They were generally dismissed, given the lack of supporting evidence. Darwin brought evidence to the table and a potential explanation for it and the scientific community has found that to be of value. Either way, "logical extrapolation from the data at hand," would be far, far more accurate than "invention."

Either way, since logical fallacies were mentioned, this entire argument against accepting evolution is fallacious. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed far, far beyond Darwin's ideas. Trying to argue against Darwin's original ideas, which have long since been either sustained or discarded based on the evidence is more than a little irrelevant.

2) There is not ONE missing link between man and Ape (or man and chimpanzee since Darwin was going by appearance and not genetic similarities) but there are BILLIONS of missing links between each distinct species. IN FACT, what the "evolutionary tree" sows is the OPPOSITE of evolution. It shows that species are distinct, NOT that one species leads to another. Where are the billions of missing links between each and every species? And not just a billion years ago, but TODAY?

First, what counts as a "missing link" needs to be defined. Creationist based arguments there tend to be slippery or have absurd requirements. Either way, the numbers cited are, frankly, overwhelmingly hyperbole at best, when referring to recent human evolutionary history. More likely, it's outright disinformation that's been fed to them by people who are not even remotely experts on the topic.

Second, as it happens, scientists continue to gain an increasingly clear picture of the recent evolutionary history of humans. Dinwar (another poster on this forum), for example, could likely direct you to a number of reputable sources for information related to such. For that matter, he could likely explain a fair bit off the top of his head.

Third, this point betrays a common creationist misunderstanding of evolution... one which is famously portrayed by attempted and horribly failing arguments against evolution like the "crocoduck." Evolution both doesn't predict "half-species" in the first place and the speciation has been directly observed, at last check.

3) Natural Selection. People who subscribe to the theory of evolution usually mistake natural selection as a process of evolution. This is patently FALSE as natural selection EXCLUDES genetic material,m it does NOT introduce unique genetic material. Natural Selection is the OPPOSITE of evolution. Natural selection CULLS genes, evolution would require NOVEL genes.

This one's just inane. I'm not sure how else to put it. Natural selection is indeed ONE PART of evolutionary theory. An important one, for that matter. It's not even remotely the whole theory, though, which makes this objection completely worthless until such time as it's demonstrated that the entire theory suffers the same issues... which it doesn't even remotely.

4) So far the only way, other than in comic books, we know of mutations is through accidents resulting in inferior gens. (Which are then REMOVED by natural selection.) Exposure to harmful environmental events - radiation, poisons, toxins, create mutation. And these mutations are HARMFUL and often leave the recipient unable to survive or reproduce, or less able to do either. So mutation is, again, contrary to evolution, NOT a contributor to it.

This is largely false. The only true statement here is that exposure to some harmful environmental events can increases the rate of mutations. Either way, the imperfect replication of DNA involved in having offspring does just fine as a means of mutation. In the end, most mutations seem to be neutral, at last check, with numerous observed instances of positive mutations and negative mutations. Nylonase is a commonly mentioned novel positive mutation, though positive mutations of humans, such as are involved with creating stronger bones, can also be referenced as examples.

Again, though, this screams out that blatantly wrong information is being shared by either highly dishonest individuals or individuals who simply have no idea what they're talking about, but are repeating it because, again, they really, really don't know what they're talking about.

5) Species. Another aspect of distinct species, which being distinct already tend to disprove evolution, is that species generally are incompatible with each other. You cannot mate distinct species with each other. In the very few cases you can, the offspring is usually STERILE. So you cannot get evolution by reproduction between species.

...Generally speaking, being no longer able to interbreed is why they're known as different species in the first place. Assuming that they were from the same parent species, at least, of course, and reproduction can be observed. Ring species are something that your friend seems woefully undereducated about, regardless, as others have mentioned.

In short, the very distinct species ARE NOT proof of evolution, but tends to DISPROVE evolution. Natural Selection does the OPPOSITE of what evolution would need to do. Mutation is almost exclusively HARMFUL and subsequently removed by natural selection. Species cannot interbreed. EVERYTHING touted by evolution proponents as an aspect of evolution is actually the OPPOSITE and tends to disprove evolution, not prove it.

Evolution is a plain BAD theory invented by someone who was going merely on outward appearance of animals, and had zero clue about DNA. It's proponents use the very things which tend to DISPROVE evolution, in an unscientific way to explain something ridiculous with logical fallacies.

NOTHING supports this theory, everything given as support tends to disprove it, not prove it."

This is a review of the previous points and... fails at least as badly as before. What this does say is that the person has been fed lots of disinformation about numerous things, not least of which are how science works, evolutionary theory in general, genetics, physics, logical fallacies, and how to employ critical thinking in the first place and is swallowing them whole.

 

[foophil]

Thanks for the input Dinwar. Much appreciated.

The idea of creationists complaining that something is an unreliable source has set off my irony meter, by the way.

Good point. That is quite amusing.

I disagree a bit with your answer here. We now know morphology to be far from the whole story, but it's still a very useful tool and not even close to "complete bogus". Things like bone shape still play a huge part in identifying and classifying animals. Genetic and other information are also important when available, but for the majority of fossils appearance is all you can ever have.

Thanks for the input. Duly noted. I've modified my reply to him to reflect this (and RecoveringYuppy's reply later).

Again, thanks everyone! Maybe I change his mind (or some of the others now following that debate between us).

 

[Mojo]

Can I point out that, by definition, we CANNOT have found "missing links"? Because if we did, they wouldn't be missing....

Ah, but every time you find a missing link, that leaves TWO MORE GAPS!