Evolution Debunking

[SmartyPants]

So, I posted that "Open-Mindedness" video from the JREF front page on my Facebook page. Here's the response I got from a friend of a friend:

"I like this. The main point I pulled from it was that requiring evidence to substantiate a claim, while not required for every situation, is actually an open-minded position. For example, I don't believe in evolution. I am tolerant of it, and I have no problem with scientists theorizing such a claim. But since such a theory would have to be backed by evidence of millions of transitional fossils, and not even a single species-to-species transitional fossil has ever been found, then I will continue to stick with my position. Not enough evidence has been produced to make such a claim. Would that make me open-minded or close-minded?"

Basically the guy is trying to bait me into a argument on evolution and Darwinism, which he tends to post quite a bit about, in addition to his Christian parables. Now, I'm not interested in answering his question. What I really want to do is knock his fossil contention out of the park, which I could do with the right resources. Maybe someone on here could point me in the right direction, or at least come up with a more articulate argument against his fallacy?

I know that enough evidence has been produced, many times over, that supports Darwinism to prove his position wrong. However, I'm not as well versed in the intricacies as I should be, so any help would be appreciated. I just about went nuts when I saw how he spun and misinterpreted the video, not to mention evolutionary theory.

[arthwollipot]

Here you go. These two links should be all you need:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/).

However, my advice is to not let on that you're getting the information from Talk.Origins. Many creationist debaters will dismiss out of hand anything that has a reference to Talk.Origins.

[MRC_Hans]

First part of his argument is a straw-man: Evolution does not predict a multitude of transitional fossils.

Speciation is a very rare event. Fossilation is also a rather rare event. The chance that a fossilation should happen to freeze a speciation event is very small indeed.

The second fallacy is simply a false statement: Transitional fossils do indeed exist. And transitional species live in the world today.

Hans

[Megalodon]

And transitional species live in the world today.

Namely, all of them...

[MRC_Hans]

Namely, all of them...Yes, in principle, but I think that is another discussion. There are, however, a number of life-forms which are evidently sitting midway between two different states.

Hans

Just one example:

[GreyICE]

So he's never seen a transitional state? Hell, there's a flightless bird called an ostrich. Tell him to look it up.

Oh I get it, that's not some sort of transition between avian flight and ground-based organisms like mammals, that's just God creating something that looks like it to fool all the atheists! Because God's a lying little prick like that.

[Megalodon]

Yes, in principle, but I think that is another discussion. There are, however, a number of life-forms which are evidently sitting midway between two different states.

Yes, I know... being a bit of a smart-ass, I was :)

Of course, living in a marginal environment is a state in itself. But as you said, it would be another discussion.

[Megalodon]

So he's never seen a transitional state? Hell, there's a flightless bird called an ostrich. Tell him to look it up.

Oh I get it, that's not some sort of transition between avian flight and ground-based organisms like mammals, that's just God creating something that looks like it to fool all the atheists! Because God's a lying little prick like that.

Actually, that is not the best way to put it. The last common ancestor between birds an mammals was a reptile, before the dinossaurs. You have to be careful with your words in this kind of debate, since one side is generally not interested in being honest.

Also, a better example (or the best example) would be the platypus. Great transitional form between reptiles and mammals.

[GreyICE]

Actually, that is not the best way to put it. The last common ancestor between birds an mammals was a reptile, before the dinossaurs. You have to be careful with your words in this kind of debate, since one side is generally not interested in being honest.

Also, a better example (or the best example) would be the platypus. Great transitional form between reptiles and mammals. The ostrich isn't some transitional form between mammals and birds. It's a transitional form between 'something that used to fly' and 'something that lives solely on the ground, with no trace of a flying creature at all.' There was no grand design to get 'here.' Where we are today is nothing more than a big 'work in progress' site.

A flying squirrel might be a transitional form between a mammal and 'something that flies' for instance. A post-mammal of some sort. We'll probably never know.

BTW I have debated them. I love it when they twist my words. My goal in debating them is to convince the people who are fence sitting (and lets face it, High school biology wasn't tops at teaching evolution for most people) that evolution makes scientific sense.

Twisting words works GREAT in speaking debates, which is why I hate it whenever someone agrees to one (Skeptic Guy got EATEN by Kent Hovind, for instance). I debated in forums. All I had to do is lay out how they twisted my words.

They'd inevitably twist them some more. I simply focused on my argument, and note how they twisted my words while constructing a consistent logical argument.

Whenever you get your opponent wandering off on rhetorical flights of fancy in writing that are at best loosely connected to what you're saying, you're scoring pure win - as long as you do not follow. Just let them add up as many 'points' as they want on you. Sit there and take it. You look more and more reasonable, they look more and more petty and irrelevant, all while they score an unimaginable 'point' total on the dirty evilutionist. Just don't get distracted - you're doing this for an audience.

It's not a game I particularly play here at the JREF, which is why I just don't talk to people who insist on logical fallacy after logical fallacy, I terminate conversations with people I consider 'not interested in honest intellectual discussion' and I choose to highlight deceptive and nasty techniques in a confrontational manner. I'd rather point out to the poster how they're being deceptive and hope they choose to change (because these techniques can be effective, hopefully the person is basically honest and doesn't know what they're doing) - but if you're playing an audience, just let them come off as increasingly petty and irrational, ground their weirder flights of fancy, and stay on message.

Oh and whatever you are doing, do NOT let yourself get caught in a copypasta of quotes with rebuttals. Let them do that to you. The format is basically unreadable to non-forum dwellers, and they'll just look silly. Respond to the thrust of their argument, because it'll collapse.

[Megalodon]

The ostrich isn't some transitional form between mammals and birds. It's a transitional form between 'something that used to fly' and 'something that lives solely on the ground, with no trace of a flying creature at all.' There was no grand design to get 'here.' Where we are today is nothing more than a big 'work in progress' site.

I understood what you meant, but as I said, and from experience, this kind of debates tend to be uneven in the honesty, so you shouldn't give a pretext for a derail. Once you said that phrase, you would have had to correct it several times, as the creationist would come back to a distorted version of it.

[Megalodon]

A flying squirrel might be a transitional form between a mammal and 'something that flies' for instance. A post-mammal of some sort. We'll probably never know.

Like a bat? ;)

[GreyICE]

I understood what you meant, but as I said, and from experience, this kind of debates tend to be uneven in the honesty, so you shouldn't give a pretext for a derail. Once you said that phrase, you would have had to correct it several times, as the creationist would come back to a distorted version of it.
No, no, no. You love a pretext for a derail. Just don't follow the derail.

They'll always address your main point, so post a reply to their point. Don't quote them (it adds an unnecessary wall of text, which is usually much more poorly formatted than yours, turns people off). Address them DIRECTLY by name, and address their response to anything they said directly adding your point. Then add a paragraph at the end, something along the lines of:

"Badfish, I think you missed the point slightly with the example, and I apologize if this was unclear. The Ostrich was an example of a transitional form between a flying creature and a creature that no longer flies or resembles a creature that might fly. A similar transition between birds and reptiles occurred millions of years ago. As the Ostrich clearly demonstrates, there are birds that can no longer fly. There are birds like Ducks, who rarely choose to fly. And there are birds like Pelicans that spend weeks flying over the ocean without rest. The 'tradeoff' between flight and 'not flight' is neither as abrupt or as unlikely as it is painted here. 'Transitional' forms are not temporary things, but products of a broad spectrum between 'always flying' and 'never flies.'"

I might clean that up a little, but you get the idea.

[Megalodon]

No, no, no. You love a pretext for a derail. Just don't follow the derail.

Comes down to different styles, I guess...

[iiwo]

Actually, that is not the best way to put it. The last common ancestor between birds an mammals was a reptile, before the dinossaurs. You have to be careful with your words in this kind of debate, since one side is generally not interested in being honest.

Also, a better example (or the best example) would be the platypus. Great transitional form between reptiles and mammals.

Platypus=great example of still extant 'transitional' species. Not truly transitional, but close enough to work out an example.


That said, on to the OP:

That said if he really IS tolerant of evolution and just hasn't seen the fossil or biological evidence to 'prove' evolution, there may be hope for him. It is very hard to break out of creationism if biology and 'surface' paleontology are the only evidences the person knows for evolution.

It was the same way for me: I had an excellent understanding of the theory of evolution bit still rejected it as the illusion/default position one would take if the story of creation were not taken literally.

Eventually I got curious about why so many people were not rejecting evolution if my beliefs were based on "obvious" truths. Eventually I sort of fell into geology and in trying to "prove" the flood to myself, I figured out why the theory of evolution was sought after in the first place!

Evolution as a biological theory does not exist in isolation--it was pursued because a recent special creation did not fit the geological evidence, which in turn did not fit the flood story. It was part of a chain reaction of sorts. Try explaining to your friend that evolution was not just made up hodge-podge like based on fossils and random observations--it was specifically sought because a special creation did not fit the geologic theories that were being developed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

If he says "uniformitarianism is a 'lie' created by old earthers..." that is an out and out lie, though he may not be aware of it. Parroting pastors who are otherwise (seemingly) correct...sigh. It's a vicious cycle. Pastor sets up to be an authority figure in scripture, student agrees after studying, pastor claims authority in "science", student is overwhelmed by science as a body of knowledge so defaults to "the pastor studied it and he knows..."...this lends credence to the pastor's understanding of scripture and the story continues...

Be gentle and short, don't drag out any one conversation; and give him 'homework'. Whenever a question comes up, answer briefly and give homework. Remind him that many of the early geologists set out to *prove* the flood and ended up being so overwhelmed by the lack of evidence/contrary evidence that they had to start from scratch forming hypothesis and (a veeerrrrryyyyy long story short) we have come to a rough understanding of the earth as it is today. There are a lot of details we lack, but they are not details which can be readily answered by a flood. Tell him "if it is so obvious, I must be missing something...[insert homework]. I'll talk to you next week/month/whatever." Then *leave* that part of the conversation as you won't make progress until he's done some homework and can talk intelligibly about both what he believes AND what he disagrees with.

Oh, and if he throws out "the grand canyon/layers of the earth...QED"...well, that doesn't cut it. Come back I guess. There are many things I don't know, but creationism is NOT one of those things. Sorry for the long post, hope something can help.

[GreyICE]

Comes down to different styles, I guess...

I don't want to sound arrogant, but I am arrogant, so here we are: Mine works. And it works WELL. When I so choose, I can demolish people. Hell, given a written format, motivation, and enough time, I can demolish most people whom I agree with on positions I disagree with.

A constant that you have to be aware of with Creationists, 9/11 truthers, and similar is that they will attempt to derail. If you follow the derail, you end up in the rabbit hole. Techniques for dealing with the derail differ, but you have to be aware of it, and not get stuck. Alternatively you can pop the derail button and hope they end up in the Antimatter space laser no plane zone, but this requires knowing who you're dealing with, and it requires the person to not have been rabbit holed too often (even BAC will no longer hare off after Clinton murder spree herrings).

My favorite for the 9/11 truthers with their copypasta lists was to cite a few easily addressed complaints and show how they were trivial then say "I would prefer an indepth discussion, as I think it would be more valuable. Can you choose your three most compelling pieces of evidence?" Inevitably they'd either try to wiggle out (at which point I'd just pin them, and they'd be in the same situation, only they'd look evasive) or they'd have to name 3 points, and I'd pin the hell out of those 3 points, which killed their ability to derail.

That one played very well, and I never saw them survive it with any scraps of dignity intact. Of course it's rare you run into a movement so compellingly and completely wrong as the 9/11 troofers, but I think the point stands.



But the one thing that never ever ever works? Loading your statements and paragraphs with enough qualifiers to avoid the derail. All that happens is that you end up sounding timid and lawyerish, and you effectively derail your own post by making it hard to read. Let the punches happen, then roll with them.

[Hokulele]

This post regarding transitional fossils may be helpful.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2492212&postcount=219

[iiwo]

{snip}
That one played very well, and I never saw them survive it with any scraps of dignity intact. Of course it's rare you run into a movement so compellingly and completely wrong as the 9/11 troofers, but I think the point stands.


If you want to save the person and only demolish the idea, you have to be slightly more sensitive to the person, but not the idea. I find it helps sometimes to play the "good cop"--and it's usually ok to let them know this. Encourage them to study and ask questions *if they are willing to do so*. Sometimes it's simply a lack of information, as it was in my case. Simply telling me I was wrong never worked--how did I know the other person wasn't wrong instead? Don't just say "you're wrong". Direct them to the WHY they are wrong and let them work on the answers. Then congratulate (or whatever is appropriate) them on their progress and give them the next piece of information. The process is similar to what GreyICE describes, but doesn't have to be so harsh. (Or you can be, it's up to you and the other person). Of course, if they're just trolling/looking for a fight...that's different, but I digress.


But the one thing that never ever ever works? Loading your statements and paragraphs with enough qualifiers to avoid the derail. All that happens is that you end up sounding timid and lawyerish, and you effectively derail your own post by making it hard to read. Let the punches happen, then roll with them.

Well stated GreyICE!

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I know... being a bit of a smart-ass, I was :)

Of course, living in a marginal environment is a state in itself. But as you said, it would be another discussion.
Well, the discussion inevitably leads there: There is not, have never been, and will never be, a life-form that is a half-finished something. Any life form, be it a transitional or not, will be able to exist on its own merit. So of course my little fish (I don't know its English name) lives in perfect harmony with its habitat. It will only be in hindsight that, sometimes in the far future, it may be recognized as a transitional form for, say, a new land animal.

Hans

[Megalodon]

Well, the discussion inevitably leads there: There is not, have never been, and will never be, a life-form that is a half-finished something. Any life form, be it a transitional or not, will be able to exist on its own merit. So of course my little fish (I don't know its English name) lives in perfect harmony with its habitat. It will only be in hindsight that, sometimes in the far future, it may be recognized as a transitional form for, say, a new land animal.

We are in complete agreement, up to not knowing the english name of that little freak :)

But you can always go with the lungfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipnoi), even more fascinating, and as good example as the platypus

[EHocking]

So of course my little fish (I don't know its English name)...That'll be Mudskipper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper)

[Sherman Bay]

Platypus=great example of still extant 'transitional' species. I think our definition of transitional species may not match an anti-evolutionist's.

To them, the presence of Species A followed by Species B, which look similar, doesn't prove that one evolved from or into the other. And indeed it doesn't, by itself. What they want to see is another creature, AB, with characteristics of both and a timeline placing it in between A & B. So a playtpus doesn't qualify unless you can place it in between an earlier and later species in this fashion.

Yes, I know that filling one gap creates two more gaps, but at least in theory, each new gap should represent smaller changes.

I'm not sufficiently versed in biology or anthropology to cite examples. I'm just pointing out how a common argument should be handled.

[MG1962]

But see if you folllow creationist arguements, the platypus is truely transitional. It proves that ducks evolved from mammals. I know I know. But let them prove you wrong ;)

[shadron]

You could try this (and the rest of the series), but I have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears (and eyes):

Qfoje7jVJpU

[arthwollipot]

Actually, the platypus is not in the least bit transitional between anything. It is not in the process of evolving from one to another like Archaeopteryx (to take a common example) is partway along the lineage that lead from dinosaurs to birds. The platypus, being an extant species, is not partway along the lineage that lead from reptiles to mammals. It is not a transitional.

[SmartyPants]

Wow, I posted this before I went to bed last night, hoping I'd get a response. I check in today and see that its blown up. Thanks to everyone for responding.

Back to the OP, I'm not sure if I should even respond to the guy. I'm not so sure he's open to his beliefs being shaken. As for whether he's open or closed minded, I guess it depends on how he came to his conclusions rather than simply what his conclusions are.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that he's not that open to the challenge. You should see the notes he's written in the past, particularly the one about Darwin.

Anyway, I wasn't quite sure how to respond to him. I'm familiar enough with evolution v. creationism arguments (he could be an ID guy, though) that I can make an argument; it's the counter arguments that I worry about. For example, I know that the transitional fossil argument is basically the creationists' trump card. Even if I show them one (which is pretty much all of them), they won't believe it, and then they'll come up with what they believe to be a transitional fossil. So, it's a matter of predicting his further responses and me worrying about looking inarticulate when I'm trying to stay on subject while he misinterprets said subject. Having said that, I've gotten some good material to work with here. Thanks.

[CurtC]

"But since such a theory would have to be backed by evidence of millions of transitional fossils, and not even a single species-to-species transitional fossil has ever been found..."

I would reply this way. First, confirm that the transitional fossil issue is really a major stumbling block for him.

Then point out that we do in fact have millions of transitional fossils! Every fossil in every museum is from a transitional species, a transition from what came before to what came after. The only exceptions would be for those few fossils where the animal went extinct before evolving further (and this would be rare).

I've heard this objection stated before, and I just don't get it - what the hell to they think all those fossils we have are? It's like they acknowledge the transition from the pakicetus to the ambulocetus, but they want a fossil from a creature between them? Wouldn't that just make them demand even more transitions?

[Madalch]

Actually, the platypus is not in the least bit transitional between anything.

Sure it is. It's transitional between what its ancestors were and what its descendants will be.

[TX50]

Why bother with this bozo at all? If he's really interested in evolution then
he should go and study a proper evolution textbook. Not debate it on the
stupidnet with someone (the OP) who themselves has only a shaky grasp
of it. Or do you really, honestly think you're going to change his mind with
your shafts of wit and wisdom?

[SmartyPants]

Why bother with this bozo at all? If he's really interested in evolution then
he should go and study a proper evolution textbook. Not debate it on the
stupidnet with someone (the OP) who themselves has only a shaky grasp
of it. Or do you really, honestly think you're going to change his mind with
your shafts of wit and wisdom?

Like I said, I don't think I really could change his mind. Richard Dawkins, whose wit and wisdom far exceeds mine, couldn't do it. That's not the point. The point is attacking the argument. But, like I said, I can attack the original argument rather easily. Curt C's post is pretty close to what I'd say. What I'm worried about are the inevitable counter arguments that'll follow; that's where a better understanding of the intricacies of evolution would be of some benefit, not to mention an primer of the BS creationist arguments.

Also, I realiaze that time and energy is wasted trying to debate someone who is probably closed to facts and/or rational arguments. Beyond that, I don't want to give someone a forum to propagate crap. But if I hear anymore of it, I think I'm gonna snap.

[paximperium]

Like I said, I don't think I really could change his mind. Richard Dawkins, whose wit and wisdom far exceeds mine, couldn't do it. That's not the point. The point is attacking the argument. But, like I said, I can attack the original argument rather easily. Curt C's post is pretty close to what I'd say. What I'm worried about are the inevitable counter arguments that'll follow; that's where a better understanding of the intricacies of evolution would be of some benefit, not to mention an primer of the BS creationist arguments.

Also, I realiaze that time and energy is wasted trying to debate someone who is probably closed to facts and/or rational arguments. Beyond that, I don't want to give someone a forum to propagate crap. But if I hear anymore of it, I think I'm gonna snap.
Well it is rather simple to falsify his claim to "open mindedness" and his claim that he has any knowledge of evolution is rather simple.

Ask him what is evolution as he understands it and what has he done to actually research it?
Nothing beats just showing the ignorance of a Creationists to show that they are not only close-minded and ignorant but also dishonest.

[godless dave]

So, I posted that "Open-Mindedness" video from the JREF front page on my Facebook page. Here's the response I got from a friend of a friend:

"I like this. The main point I pulled from it was that requiring evidence to substantiate a claim, while not required for every situation, is actually an open-minded position. For example, I don't believe in evolution. I am tolerant of it, and I have no problem with scientists theorizing such a claim. But since such a theory would have to be backed by evidence of millions of transitional fossils, and not even a single species-to-species transitional fossil has ever been found, then I will continue to stick with my position. Not enough evidence has been produced to make such a claim. Would that make me open-minded or close-minded?"


The bolded part makes him a liar.

[SmartyPants]

Well it is rather simple to falsify his claim to "open mindedness" and his claim that he has any knowledge of evolution is rather simple.

Ask him what is evolution as he understands it and what has he done to actually research it?
Nothing beats just showing the ignorance of a Creationists to show that they are not only close-minded and ignorant but also dishonest.

I also detect the sort of insidious approach to debate the issue. Rather than asking him what evolution is (as that's a rather broad topic), I'd probably start by asking him what he thinks a transitional fossil is, then it'd probably move into what he thinks evolution is. Maybe that's backwards, though.

He hasn't responded to my response yet, which basically said "I don't have enough evidence to know if you're open-minded or not," meaning I don't know how he came to his conclusions on evolution. I have a pretty good idea, though. And if my suspicion is correct, then there probably isn't much of a point debating the guy unless I can make his arguments look silly. I just don't think he's going to change his mind unless he wants to do the work himself.

[H3LL]

If often wondered about this one.

I would like to know from others if it's a valid come-back to the "transitional fossil" chestnut.

Q. "<Some question about there not being enough transitional fossils>...."

A. "You do not look exactly like your father and you do not look exactly like your mother. Where is the transitional person?
When you know the answer you understand quite a lot about transitional fossils."


.

[TheDaver]

“For example, I don't believe in evolution. I am tolerant of it, and I have no problem with scientists theorizing such a claim. But since such a theory would have to be backed by evidence of millions of transitional fossils, and not even a single species-to-species transitional fossil has ever been found, then I will continue to stick with my position. Not enough evidence has been produced to make such a claim. Would that make me open-minded or close-minded?”
Tell your friend the plain truth: He’s lying.

[paximperium]

Tell your friend the plain truth: He’s lying.
Lying requires an deliberate knowledge that his statement is false. He is most likely ignorant.

[godless dave]

Lying requires an deliberate knowledge that his statement is false. He is most likely ignorant.

He didn't say he was unaware of any transistional fossils. He made the claim that there aren't any. So, at best, he's making a statement without investigating whether his statement is backed up by facts, which is pretty darn close to lying.

[TheDaver]

Lying requires an deliberate knowledge that his statement is false.
He didn't say he was unaware of any transistional fossils. He made the claim that there aren't any. So, at best, he's making a statement without investigating whether his statement is backed up by facts, which is pretty darn close to lying.
It is lying. If you don’t know something to be true, you need to qualify your statement, e.g. “I think…” or “As far as I know…” or “Bob told me…”

[MattusMaximus]

In general I agree with GreyIce's comments here about when & how to debate creationists. I especially agree with the point about who you're really attempting to convince - most of the time I know that a hardcore creationist will always find some intellectually inconsistent way to weasel out of a losing argument. What I'm really interested in doing is laying out the arguments for the fence-sitters; this is especially true in online forums (like this one) as there tend to be a large number of lurkers.

[arthwollipot]

Sure it is. It's transitional between what its ancestors were and what its descendants will be.By that definition, of course, every species is transitional, and I have actually made that argument against creationists in the past.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Would that make me open-minded or close-minded?"
Lying requires an deliberate knowledge that his statement is false. He is most likely ignorant.
Bingo. And it doesn't matter if he's ignorant through no fault of his own or willingly, he would be ignorant so going with the nuclear option and calling him a liar is not the best tactic.

Actually, the platypus is not in the least bit transitional between anything. It is not in the process of evolving from one to another like Archaeopteryx (to take a common example) is partway along the lineage that lead from dinosaurs to birds. The platypus, being an extant species, is not partway along the lineage that lead from reptiles to mammals. It is not a transitional.

A lot of posts here have contained what, to us, a pat answers that make sense but don't answer the question or respond to the objection (however specious it is) that the Creationist is offering. Verbiage and language are very important in this discussion so I think things like "every species is transitional" isn't helpful in the dialogue.

Specifically for platypuses and more specifically for all extant and extinct Monotremes we should refer to them not as transitionals per se, but as examples transitionals that exhibit the characteristics of two different taxa. In their case reptiles and mammals. Now, this might require you to go a bit further and explain the earliest Synapsids would have been much more reptile like and much less mammal like and cite beings like Dimetrodon, but this is a complex argument and if we're going to be as specific and detailed as possible and avoid pithy simplistic responses.

That's their M.O. :D

[iiwo]

Platypus=great example of still extant 'transitional' species. Not truly transitional, but close enough to work out an example.

{snip}


[QUOTE=Sherman Bay;4590947]I think our definition of transitional species may not match an anti-evolutionist's.

To them, the presence of Species A followed by Species B, which look similar, doesn't prove that one evolved from or into the other. And indeed it doesn't, by itself. What they want to see is another creature, AB, with characteristics of both and a timeline placing it in between A & B. So a playtpus doesn't qualify unless you can place it in between an earlier and later species in this fashion.

{snip}
I'm just pointing out how a common argument should be handled.

You are correct in saying the definitions do not match. Also correct are the posters who point out the platypus is not a transitional species between something and mammals, but between pre- and post-platypi creatures.

In the quoted post above I put transitional in quote marks ('transitional') to notate that idea. I think it was generally understood, but just want to clarify.

In speaking with a creationist, you can't just blurt out "the platypus is a transitional species". Or lungfish, or whatever. What you can say is "it seems at the moment that the first mammals would have had traits like a platypus in that they were hairy, warm blooded, and laid eggs. Additionally, they do not have nipples, but secrete milk like stuff through their skin, etc....On another subject, with both modern and extinct reptiles and mammals there are distinct differences in the skeletons that enable us to identify the class (mammalia or reptilia) the organism belonged to when it was alive, regardless of species. Often we can even tell the order and possibly family...etc",

And make sure he follows, as the above is pretty solid, even for a creationist. You will have to give more examples than "etc," but the details are superfluous to this example.

Then you may opt to move on to:


"Now, there are a number of skeletons that are found in a rather specific frame of reference when compared to other fossils, and these skeletons belong to (how many species/families/whatever) and paleontologists and biologists argue over whether they are mammal-like reptiles, or reptile-like mammals.

None of those animals are alive today, but based on what we know of...(however we know, i'll try to find the reference), it is likely these organisms laid eggs, regardless of mammal or reptile-ness.


And then:

If indeed evolution is true, then it is likely that mammals alive today went from laying eggs outside the body, to "laying" eggs inside the body (like sharks or rattlesnakes), to gestation over the course of many generations.

Lineages that developed the ability to hold the gestating young inside the body would have a rather hard time passing that genetic information to those who could not, resulting in some lineages continuing to lay eggs
Platypus (and that hedgehog thing--Echidna maybe?) still lay eggs, and have a number of other features that differ significantly from other mammals

Bonus round if he's into it: Where do you think marsupials would fit into this "heirarchy"?

The platypus (or Echidna, or lungfish, or whatever) is NOT a transitional species, they are examples of how what we now bill *as* transitional species may have survived.

What we call transitional species are not half-and-halfs as they are often made out to be by evangelists or creation 'scientists'. The term has been hijacked in that community. Every organism, and every species, must be viable. We don't know how every change happens, but with situations such as mammal-like reptiles, and reptile-like mammals, we at least know organisms with trademark traits of both can survive and reproduce!


My favorite question to students inquiring about creationism/transitional species is actually not the platypus, but the lungfish. How does it survive out of water? It stays wet...now, imagine if a lungfish mutant (and laughed at by his friends) had a weepy/leaky set of cells near his gills that kept them wet twice or three times longer than just dunking (like his buddies had to do). In normal times, no one would be the better, but if there were a drought? He could totally make it to the pond 300 yards away (or whatever) that his friends couldn't. He and whatever girl fish he impressed with that feat had babies that could do the same. Some of the babies even spent most of their time on land, in moist leaf litter, etc.

Is he a fish? Or a salamander-esque thing now?...

Ask him to walk through the questions with you, "whether or not you think I'm right, walk through these questions with me".

I apologize if this is a wall of text, I am having trouble focusing at the moment but wanted to throw out two cents while it was still on topic. Now off to find the references :S

[TheDaver]

Bingo. And it doesn't matter if he's ignorant through no fault of his own or willingly, he would be ignorant so going with the nuclear option and calling him a liar is not the best tactic.
Completely wrong.

Calling a liar a liar is “going with the nuclear option”? No, you’re just spineless.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Completely wrong.

Calling a liar a liar is “going with the nuclear option”? No, you’re just spineless.

:rolleyes: Spare me the chest thumping.

[GreyICE]

In using terms like liar that are emotionally loaded, I usually err on the side of the nuclear option.

If you want a more balanced approach, you can suggest they were misinformed or ignorant. That's just calling them a liar in a pretty pink bow and ribbons. I find it stupid and irresponsible - if you're going to say something, say it, don't dance around it like a 16 year old asking the school hottie to the prom.

It's fine to say "Someone has lied to you when they told you that" by the way. There's a liar in the food chain. If you believe that they are accurately reporting something someone told them, tell them that they were lied to.

[arthwollipot]

I prefer the term "misinformed", especially when dealing directly with a creationist. Calling them "ignorant" is almost as much of an insult as calling them "a liar".

[iiwo]

It's fine to say "Someone has lied to you when they told you that" by the way. There's a liar in the food chain. If you believe that they are accurately reporting something someone told them, tell them that they were lied to.

That I agree with. At first I thought you were saying to call the other guy a liar mid-debate. That usually throws up lots of walls and makes things crumble pretty quick. Then I read your line again and realized what you WERE saying and it's quite good!

I'm going to remember the liar in the foodchain, whilst not forgetting that it is possible to tell the 'truth' without being correct, if that makes sense. You seem to have a way with words greyice!

And in relation to my earlier long-ish post, here is the article discussing mammals and reptiles (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2). There are other good examples in that page as well, take a look around.

[godless dave]

Bingo. And it doesn't matter if he's ignorant through no fault of his own or willingly, he would be ignorant so going with the nuclear option and calling him a liar is not the best tactic.


I don't see calling out lying as being the "nuclear option". In the community I live in, telling lies is considered worse than calling someone a liar. I realize there are subcultures where the opposite is true, but I don't live in one.

[SmartyPants]

I'm not ready to go out on a limb and call the guy a liar. He may well be. Certainly he was lied to at some point in the food chain, as GreyICE put it. I don't really know the guy that well to tell.

In any event, he still hasn't replied to my response, which basically said "Yeah, I don't know how you came to that conclusion."

iiwo, I have to thank you for your very detailed blueprint there (and everyone else for the info/opinions they've provided). My understanding of evolutionary theory is rather basic, but not what I would call shaky by any means. I can find the answers to questions I want answered, check them out, and usually be satisfied. Those answers likely won't satisfy him even if I show him creationist refutations with reasonable, easy to understand scientific answers that quash those refutations (easily, I might add). The point is that he's probably got an arsenal of creationist counterarguments lined up for the clear-cut answers provided by 99.99% of scientific community. Of course, if the conversation exhausts itself, I suppose I'll just have to move on, call him liar or willfully ignorant(which would be abundantly clear soon into the conversation, I would think), and let the conversation die, knowing that he's most likely a lost cause. Likewise, anybody who's lurking would know who's right and who's wrong.

[shawmutt]

Everything you ever wanted to know, and then some, about the platypus. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html)

Evidently this is a well worn argument, and bringing up a platypus is in the favor of creationists.

[SmartyPants]

As far as I can tell, Talk.Origins is the go-to place

[MG1962]

I have been encountering recently a new type of creationist (In my experience anyway) They base their whole argument on the principle of philosophy 101 - Basically they argue all science is false because the reference point (The Human condition) is flawed.

They are harder to land a punch on than Ali at his prime. Their position seems to be they have no position. But you cant prove they have no position because you need to keep refering back to the flawed reference point.

Usually I just give up and draw briefly on my deep knowledge of the Australian venacular and send them on their way

[Dr Adequate]

Archaeopteryx.

Intermediate Forms Between Classes.

Intermediate Forms.

Useful?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't see calling out lying as being the "nuclear option". In the community I live in, telling lies is considered worse than calling someone a liar. I realize there are subcultures where the opposite is true, but I don't live in one.

Let me know how well that approach works out for you. From what I've seen it tends to immediately break down communication and cause the other person to throw up defences even more impervious than their ingorance. Basically you've struck at their honor and I can see why they'd want to end dialogue and either walk away, start preaching or flaming. The same applies for any verbiage that is insulting or and goes both ways (I get pissed off when I see crap like "Darweenies", etc.)*



* If anyone thinks it's ironic that two guys with user IDs UnrepentantSinner and godless dave are discussing the what sort of tact to use when dealing with Creationists... just stop it. :p

[arthwollipot]

As far as I can tell, Talk.Origins is the go-to placeYes, it is. But as I said, I've found that if I reference TO in an argument, the creationist will absolutely dismiss it out of hand. They won't even read it, or consider it seriously. It's far better to use the references that the TO articles use.

[Perpetual Student]

I have been encountering recently a new type of creationist (In my experience anyway) They base their whole argument on the principle of philosophy 101 - Basically they argue all science is false because the reference point (The Human condition) is flawed.
...


Would it not also follow that all religion is false?

[TheDaver]

Would it not also follow that all religion is false?
If they were rational it would.

[Gregoire]

So, I posted that "Open-Mindedness" video from the JREF front page on my Facebook page. Here's the response I got from a friend of a friend:

"I like this. The main point I pulled from it was that requiring evidence to substantiate a claim, while not required for every situation, is actually an open-minded position. For example, I don't believe in evolution. I am tolerant of it, and I have no problem with scientists theorizing such a claim. But since such a theory would have to be backed by evidence of millions of transitional fossils, and not even a single species-to-species transitional fossil has ever been found, then I will continue to stick with my position. Not enough evidence has been produced to make such a claim. Would that make me open-minded or close-minded?"

Basically the guy is trying to bait me into a argument on evolution and Darwinism, which he tends to post quite a bit about, in addition to his Christian parables. Now, I'm not interested in answering his question. What I really want to do is knock his fossil contention out of the park, which I could do with the right resources. Maybe someone on here could point me in the right direction, or at least come up with a more articulate argument against his fallacy?

I know that enough evidence has been produced, many times over, that supports Darwinism to prove his position wrong. However, I'm not as well versed in the intricacies as I should be, so any help would be appreciated. I just about went nuts when I saw how he spun and misinterpreted the video, not to mention evolutionary theory.

If you have any chance of someone rational listening to you, I would concentrate on the genetic evidence. Even creationists accept that you can determine hereditary on this basis. Point out, that similar principles apply to relationships between species.

It is amazing what has been recently discoveried and how old theories of common ancestry have been tested (yes tested!) and been found to be correct.

I tried to discuss some of this evidence on a thread a while back, and no creationist even attempted to show me where I was "wrong".

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102884

One good discussion of this was pointed out to me at: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Molecular_Phylogeny

For more detail than talk origins, I suggest the Evolution 101 podcast by Dr. Zachary Moore. And recently there was a book written by Jerry Coyne entitled Why Evolution is True which I have not read but heard good things about.

I personally have read The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll which also discusses a lot of this new data, although I warn you it is very technical.


Good luck and please let us know how it goes. And if the creationists can come up with a better argument than "God created the genetic evidence to fool us", I'd love to hear it!

[shawmutt]

Did anyone mention the 15 Evolutionary Gems article from Nature magazine?

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

[SmartyPants]

Good luck and please let us know how it goes. And if the creationists can come up with a better argument than "God created the genetic evidence to fool us", I'd love to hear it!

I certainly will let everyone know. Frankly though, I don't think he's going to press me since I didn't take the bait.

The Carroll book is probably too technical for me at this point, but the other links look, at first glance, very helpful. Thank you (And thank you to shawnmutt for linking the Nature article). If the other approaches don't work (i.e. evidence showing that transitional fossils do, in fact, exist), then maybe this is the way to go. However, if the obvious doesn't get to him, I doubt anything will. As I've said before, I suspect he's got a Creationist flow chart of responses for almost every answer I/we could possibly give...and if that's the case, then the only thing I can do is stay on topic, point out the plain truth, and move on.

[UnrepentantSinner]

As I've said before, I suspect he's got a Creationist flow chart of responses for almost every answer I/we could possibly give...and if that's the case, then the only thing I can do is stay on topic, point out the plain truth, and move on.

No problem. A lot of us have been dealing with Creationists for so long we've got responses to their canned responses. If it seems like he's going off a list, post his stuff here and we can give advice on best how to tackle it.

[arthwollipot]

Most of it is likely to be on the Index to Creationist Claims that I linked upthread. That's our flowchart.

[Roboramma]

So, I posted that "Open-Mindedness" video from the JREF front page on my Facebook page. Here's the response I got from a friend of a friend:

"I like this. The main point I pulled from it was that requiring evidence to substantiate a claim, while not required for every situation, is actually an open-minded position. For example, I don't believe in evolution. I am tolerant of it, and I have no problem with scientists theorizing such a claim. But since such a theory would have to be backed by evidence of millions of transitional fossils, and not even a single species-to-species transitional fossil has ever been found, then I will continue to stick with my position. Not enough evidence has been produced to make such a claim. Would that make me open-minded or close-minded?"

Regarding his first sentence, he's right: we should require evidence to substantiate claims. Cool.

Then he goes on to mention evolution: great! It has an immense amount of evidence to support it! That evidence comes in many forms and from many directions. Which is pretty cool: the fact that all those different areas converge on the same answer: that life on earth is a product of common decent, and that it's immense diversity was brought about through natural selection.
Next he mentions the fossil evidence, and specifically transitional fossils. I would ask him "why, if evolution were true, would you expect to see millions of transitional fossils?"
If he can explain that well, cool, he must know something about evolution and those things which he has to express are points that you can bring up again (which he has necessarily agreed are true). If he explains this poorly, he's already lost, as you can point out that his understanding of the topic is flawed, and thus any conclusions he draws from that flawed understanding are also flawed.

Next he points out that since not enough evidence has been collected, he dismisses the theory. Fair enough, except that he clearly hasn't looked at the evidence. Ask him if he knows about other forms of evidence, besides transitional fossils, that also support the theory. The DNA evidence, for instance, is conclusion.

When it comes to common ancestry I like the nested hierarchy of forms: why is it, for instance, that bats , who give birth to life young, and have a distinctive mammalian inner ear, also have fur rather than feathers? Clearly feathers are well adapted to flight, so why do bats have fur? The theory of evolution explains this very well, and even predicts that animals with other mammalian features will not have feathers (of the bird type, they may evolve feather-like structures, but they won't be feathers). Similarly, there are no birds with that inner ear structure.

Basically the guy is trying to bait me into a argument on evolution and Darwinism, which he tends to post quite a bit about, in addition to his Christian parables. Now, I'm not interested in answering his question. What I really want to do is knock his fossil contention out of the park, which I could do with the right resources. Maybe someone on here could point me in the right direction, or at least come up with a more articulate argument against his fallacy? Regarding that, a) there are a great deal of transitional fossils. b) there is no reason to believe we should have found more than we already have, why does he think we should have?