"Dead Animals Don't Evolve"?

[John Jones]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I have had a running discussion with an IDer. She seems to understand nothing about modern evolution theory, and ends every post with the phrase "Dead animals don't evolve."

I'm not trying to sway her from her creationist beliefs. I just call her when she misrepresents the theory of evolution, as I understand it. She seems to think Lamarckism is the latest scientific theory going.

I'm at a loss to understand what "dead animals don't evolve" even means.

Can anyone enlighten me?

[macdoc]

Do you not have better things to do with your limited time on the planet than try and unravel of the mysteries of the mind of a religious idjit?? :garfield:

[John Jones]

As a matter of fact, I don't.

[madurobob]

Its pretty simple, really. X would kill an animal not suited to X. If an animal without proper design (wings for flight, air bladder for plumbing the depths of the ocean) encounters X then the animal is killed. Thus evolution cannot possibly account for the design of the animal that allows it to survive/thrive in X, there simply must be an intelligent designer.

But, more succinctly, what macdoc said.

[knusper]

She seems to believe that evolution is about nature correcting mistakes by quickly redesigning designs that were bad enough to let a creature die?

[Prometheus]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I have has a running discussion with an IDer. She seems to understand nothing about modern evolution theory, and ends every post with the phrase "Dead animals don't evolve."

I'm not trying to sway her from her creationist beliefs. I just call her when she misrepresents the theory of evolution, as I understand it. She seems to think Lamarckism is the latest scientific theory going.

I'm at a loss to understand what "dead animals don't evolve" even means.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Here is one version (http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/MOGC%2006.htm) of the IDiots' argument.

It's basically a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution which begs the question as to intelligent design.

It typically doesn't help enlighten hardcore IDiots to point out that live animals don't evolve either.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Purely a guess, but maybe it's meant to be a Creationist argument about the alleged inability of evolution to explain mimicry (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#mimics). ETA: Similar arguments for warning coloration in animals that are dangerous for predators to eat.

Another guess is just the very general misunderstanding Creationists have that evolution claims that individual organisms do the changing. I've heard them say something like, put a fish in an aquarium and wait to see if it turns into something else. In fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection does not conflict with the observation that every individual organism dies the same species it was when its life began.

Similarly, I recall a Creationist (sorry--I use the term Creationist since I consider ID to be a bogus term used to repackage Creationism in a failed attempt to persuade the courts that it's not a religious doctrine) comparing the fossil record to a movie with many of the frames of film missing. He said consider one frame with a picture of a candle on a table, and another frame where you have an electric lamp on the same table. You don't conclude that the candle turned into an electric lamp. Again, evolution does not predict that any organism will change species in its lifetime. The variation that natural selection acts on is inter-generational.

Just curious, have you asked the guy what that remark in his sig is about?

[Foster Zygote]

How curious.

It might be best to come right out and ask what exactly she means by that statement.

If madurobob is correct, then the obvious answer is that X doesn't always result in death for an individual without a certain adaptation. X simply makes it more likely that individuals with a certain adaptation will pass on the genes for said adaptation to the next generation. Thus the genes for the favorable adaptation will increase in frequency in subsequent generations.

[madurobob]

How curious.

It might be best to come right out and ask what exactly she means by that statement.

If madurobob is correct, then the obvious answer is that X doesn't always result in death for an individual without a certain adaptation. X simply makes it more likely that individuals with a certain adaptation will pass on the genes for said adaptation to the next generation. Thus the genes for the favorable adaptation will increase in frequency in subsequent generations.

Yup. And, as Prometheus said, its a fundamental (ha!) misconception of how evolution works. No individual animal, living or dead, evolves. Groups evolve, species evolve, not individuals.

[Myriad]

Yeah I've encountered this framework of misconception before. The same person is also likely to believe that every caterpillar evolves into a butterfly (while the theory of evolution fails to adequately explain how).

What madurobob said. Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: You might also try countering with, "Of course dead animals evolve. If they didn't, zombie cats wouldn't be able to fly." It is every bit as likely to convince your correspondent as the real answer.

[John Jones]

...Just curious, have you asked the guy what that remark in his sig is about?

Yes. The only reply I get is that I'm too stupid to see the evidence that's right in front of my face.

When I ask about the evidence, she becomes abusive and says: "The same evidence I've presented time and again, and you're too blind too see."

I'm not trying to convince her of anything, I just won't let straw-man representations of evolution stand without challenge. There might be fence-sitters lurking who would be taken in by this 'logic'.

This is not a creationist forum, BTW.

She seems to think that evolution requires individuals of one form to consciously desire evolving to another specific form.

Anyway, I just thought maybe someone else had heard the 'dead animals don't evolve' argument, and could explain it.

It sounds like a bunch of muddled thinking to me.

[Denver]

Perhaps some visual aids would help your friend.

I think you should sit down with that person, and draw some pictures, showing an ancestor, with (n) layers of descendants, some with new attributes. Show how some of those attributes (or lack thereof) allowed some to die sooner without producing many descendants, and how other attributes (or lack thereof) allowed some to survive longer and in turn produce more descendants.

Go generation by generation. If they still don't get it, go another generation, and so on. Wait until you're in it a ways before mentioning that these generational layers may be not just a few like you're drawing, but may takes hundreds or thousands to produce a change significant to survival (showing that some changes may effectively do nothing at all).

Maybe the visual, step-by-step approach will be useful to your friend's understanding

[Foster Zygote]

Yes. The only reply I get is that I'm too stupid to see the evidence that's right in front of my face.

When I ask about the evidence, she becomes abusive and says: "The same evidence I've presented time and again, and you're too blind too see."

In other words: she's got nothin'. This sort of evasion is so transparent that I'm amazed that people who use it think that they're fooling anyone.

[ElMondoHummus]

That just seems like a stupid thing for even an anti-evolutionist to say. Dead hair doesn't grow either, and all the evidence you need for that can be gathered from the floor of your local barber shop. But that doesn't demonstrate a single thing in regards to hair growth.

[jasonpatterson]

This statement is so stupid, as it is phrased, that I figured google was the only hope in finding out a meaning. I searched for it and didn't find much of anything (this thread is the first link.) I did see this tidbit (http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/MOGC%2006.htm) about anglerfish (a bizarre, super deep-sea, monster fish thing, in case you don't know what it is) that includes the sentence. As stated earlier, it seems to be saying that an anglerfish couldn't have evolved from a surface fish because no surface fish could survive the conditions that an anglerfish lives in.

Basically, it's a statement made by someone who has no idea about how evolution works, or more probably, someone who is willingly breaking the ninth commandment to not bear false witness, i.e. lying. It would be fun to patiently explain how evolution explains this type of situation then inform her that continuing to make a blatantly incorrect statement to advance her argument is lying and thus a sin.

[madurobob]

She seems to think that evolution requires individuals of one form to consciously desire evolving to another specific form.
Yes, seen that before, too. Here is another link (http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution of Creationist/MOGC 05.htm) from the same series Prometheus linked to, this one about Giraffes:
We all know that dead animals don't evolve anything, even though evolution demands its creatures realize they need an improvement before that improvement begins to evolve.

That's a grade-school level strawman right there... and probably similar to what your creationist foil is spouting. She clearly has no understanding of evolution but what she's learned from links like the one above. You could do the noble thing and try to educate her, but she's likely not interested. But, you can help prevent her filling other young minds on that forum with such drivel.

(ETA: in that link, just change the number at the end - "MOGC 01.htm", "MOGC 02.htm", etc... to see lots more complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of evolution)

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes. The only reply I get is that I'm too stupid to see the evidence that's right in front of my face.

When I ask about the evidence, she becomes abusive and says: "The same evidence I've presented time and again, and you're too blind too see."

I'm not trying to convince her of anything, I just won't let straw-man representations of evolution stand without challenge. There might be fence-sitters lurking who would be taken in by this 'logic'.

This is not a creationist forum, BTW.

She seems to think that evolution requires individuals of one form to consciously desire evolving to another specific form.

Anyway, I just thought maybe someone else had heard the 'dead animals don't evolve' argument, and could explain it.

It sounds like a bunch of muddled thinking to me.

Oh, pfff... "right in front of your face..." That's a whole lot of tap-dance dodging right there. Said person is campaigning, not arguing. I would've walked away at that point, muttering complaints about people who strike poses of understanding without having sufficient knowldge to actually explain themselves.

Then again, you may have your own quite legitimate reasons to engage with this person. So don't take my write off as being something that applies to you; if you think you can give her a decent argument, go for it. If nothing else, passionate debate helps warm the blood during these cold winter months. :D

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes. The only reply I get is that I'm too stupid to see the evidence that's right in front of my face.

When I ask about the evidence, she becomes abusive and says: "The same evidence I've presented time and again, and you're too blind too see."

I guess my response (after first considering whether I even want to continue conversing with this person) is to submit the idea that her response is just a dodge. Even if the argument is self-evident, she should be able to articulate the argument. The fact that she won't might just be a cover-up for the fact that she can't.

Until she can articulate otherwise, you could tell her, you will operate on the assumption that she cannot, and consider the un-expressed argument to be invalid (or non-existent).


This is not a creationist forum, BTW.
Call me cynical, but I operate under the assumption that someone advocating ID is a Creationist until I see evidence to the contrary.

"cdesign proponentist" is pretty damning evidence.

She seems to think that evolution requires individuals of one form to consciously desire evolving to another specific form.
Yes, that sounds like some version of Lamarckism. (BTW, your tag on that word is typoed.)

Anyway, I'm just thought maybe someone else had heard the 'dead animals don't evolve' argument, and could explain it.
Check out the Creationist arguments about warning coloration and mimicry of same and similar stuff (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n3/designed-defenses). They claim evolution can't explain how a trait that can only be effective if the predator eats the prey animal could evolve.

In fact, when Bates first described mimicry like this, he offered it as evidence of selection as opposed to Lamarckism. If your person thinks evolution=Lamarckism, this could be the kind of error she's thinking of.

[John Jones]

That just seems like a stupid thing for even an anti-evolutionist to say. Dead hair doesn't grow either, and all the evidence you need for that can be gathered from the floor of your local barber shop. But that doesn't demonstrate a single thing in regards to hair growth.

She's typically a poster of very stupid arguments. I'm not attempting to convince her of anything. She's incapable of understanding.

I'm loathe to let her 'arguments' stand unchallenged lest well-meaning, but uninformed people take them as fact.

She has made this 'no dead animals evolve' statement so consistently that I thought there must be some published author of that argument. She couldn't have come up with it on her own.

[John Jones]

Yes, that sounds like some version of Lamarckism. (BTW, your tag on that word is typoed.)

How do I correct the spelling in that tag?

Edit to Add: Nevermind. I think I fixed it.

[John Jones]

Check out the Creationist arguments about warning coloration and mimicry of same and similar stuff. They claim evolution can't explain how a trait that can only be effective if the predator eats the prey animal could evolve.

In fact, when Bates first described mimicry like this, he offered it as evidence of selection as opposed to Lamarckism. If your person thinks evolution=Lamarckism, this could be the kind of error she's thinking of.

I think that's it!

She mentions mimicry and prey all the time. And in the next sentence, parrots the 'dead animals don't evolve' mantra.

[dudalb]

And Dead Puppies Are'nt Much Fun, either......

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think that's it!

She mentions mimicry and prey all the time. And in the next sentence, parrots the 'dead animals don't evolve' mantra.

That could be it.

I just googled the phrase and came up with a hit on a comment related to some Panda'sThumb teaching materials (http://blog.coincidencetheories.com/?p=769). (The phrase "dead animals don't evolve" is part of the fill in the blank exercise.) I haven't watched the video, but since it's about giraffes I suspect it might be a case of a creationist argument that confuses Lamarckism with the current theory of evolution.

[Wowbagger]

If my interpretation of his meaning is correct, you could counter it this way:

Humans are not born from dead mothers. Your great-great-great-great grandmother might have died long before you were ever born. However, that does NOT mean you couldn't possibly be related to her.

In a similar way, all life forms could very well be related to all other life forms: If you go back far enough with the "greats", you will eventually hit upon common ancestors. We would be related to those common ancestors, even if they died loooong before we were ever born.

[Foster Zygote]

And Dead Puppies Are'nt Much Fun, either......

And fish heads don't play drums.

[John Jones]

Humans are not born from dead mothers. Your great-great-great-great grandmother might have died long before you were ever born. However, that does NOT mean you couldn't possibly be related to her.

I like that. It will bring her vituperation down on me, but it might reach the lurkers.

[Prometheus]

The problem with IDiots is that once they have been told The Truth by an authority they trust, that 'truth' just won't ever go away. It doesn't matter how many times, or in how many ways, you point out that they've got hold of a strawman version of evolution, the conversation is always basically the same:

IDiot: x is not true, therefore y.
me: Evolution does not say x.
IDiot: Okay, but x still isn't true, therefore y.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

For the benefit of any lurkers on that other forum, you might point out that what Evolution really says is completely uncontroversial:

1) Children often look a little, but not exactly, like their parents; and

2) Individuals that reproduce more will have more children.

Everything else follows logically.

[John Jones]

The problem with IDiots is that once they have been told The Truth by an authority they trust, that 'truth' just won't ever go away. It doesn't matter how many times, or in how many ways, you point out that they've got hold of a strawman version of evolution, the conversation is always basically the same:

IDiot: x is not true, therefore y.
me: Evolution does not say x.
IDiot: Okay, but x still isn't true, therefore y.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

For the benefit of any lurkers on that other forum, you might point out that what Evolution really says is completely uncontroversial:

1) Children often look a little, but not exactly, like their parents; and

2) Individuals that reproduce more will have more children.

Everything else follows logically.


I try.

I'm not trying to disparage anyone's religious beliefs there, nor sell evolution. I'm calling her whenever she misrepresents modern evolution theory.

My postition is simple and fair (IMO): If people want to reject or discredit evolution theory, they owe it to themselves to at least understand what it is.

I'm constantly acccused by this person of being a mindless follower of the Dogmatic Religion of Science(tm), and she has no understanding of science.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

John Jones,

May I suggest you give her this?


The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
See what her reaction is.

~~ Paul

[Prometheus]

I try.

I'm not trying to disparage anyone's religious beliefs there, nor sell evolution. I'm calling her whenever she misrepresents modern evolution theory.

My postition is simple and fair (IMO): If people want to reject or discredit evolution theory, they owe it to themselves to at least understand what it is.

I'm constantly acccused by this person of being a mindless follower of the Dogmatic Religion of Science(tm), and she has no understanding of science.

Ask her which bible passage provides instructions to build the computer she's using to communicate with you.

[Michael C]

It's worth pointing out that death is an essential component of evolution: one generation replaces another. If animals didn't die, the process of evolution wouldn't work. "Survival of the fittest" can't happen if everybody survives.

[John Jones]

John Jones,

May I suggest you give her this?


See what her reaction is.

~~ Paul

I guess nested quotes don't work here.

I'll post it. I already know what her reaction will be. It will be some series of furious ad hominems including atheist, misogynist, and slave to Dogmatic Scientism.

It never fails.


I may have mentioned before, but I'm not trying to convince her of anything. She is way beyond any reason.

I just won't let any of her attacks on evolution theory stand until she shows some understanding of what it actually says.

I do it for the children. :^)

[Simon39759]

It also seems to me like she has no understanding of what the theory actually says, that she was just told not to like it by her pastor and is repeating whatever silly argument the pastor used that she happens to remember.
While the odds of changing that are slim, you might want to try as Paul C. said, starting with the very basic of the theory and correct her misconception. If she contradict you at that point, it probably going to be with misconception. Correct them patiently. If she 'jump the shark' and attack you with standard creationist BS, ask her to be patient. You need, after all, to get the basics of what you are discussing clear before debating it's validity. If she gets annoyed at you 'avoiding the debate' point to her sig and mention how that seems to indicate at least to misconception about Evolution and that you feel it is necessary to make the theory clear before moving the conversation further. Be firm but patient.

Once you are done with explaining the theory, start showing evidences for it. ERVs are great example.
You can also answer to her BS (do you know talk origin (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)? This website is invaluable to answer).

You seem to be polite and patient, and these are great qualities.
It might not help convincing her (although, it won't hurt) it will help convince people reading the argument that have not yet drank the cool-aid as much.

She does not seem to know much about the subject (considering her refusal to give arguments), or care enough to educate herself, even by reading creationist literature.
So, odds are high that either she will parrot the same BS time and time over and refuse your offer of dialogue, or she will stop participating altogether. In either case you will appear victorious.

[Simon39759]

I do it for the children. :^)

You are being paid in baby too, then, like any good Godless atheist? These are delicious!

[John Jones]

Ask her which bible passage provides instructions to build the computer she's using to communicate with you.

OK. I haven't used that one in a while. That usually shuts the pure Luddites right up.

I didn't mean to turn this into an attack on an unnamed adversary on an unnamed forum.

I just wanted to research the claim in the title: "Dead Animals Don't Evolve"

[John Jones]

It also seems to me like she has no understanding of what the theory actually says, that she was just told not to like it by her pastor and is repeating whatever silly argument the pastor used that she happens to remember.
...

This has been going on for years. I only recently got annoyed enough by the "Dead Animals Don't Evolve" claim to research it. I came here because I couldn't find any information about it elsewhere.

She not only has no clue about evolution, but she doesn't seem to have any clear theology either. She never has, and I don't even want to challenge her on it. Jesus loves her and hates scientists, as far as I can tell.

But - and this is my point - if she misrepresents modern evolution theory, or chemistry, or physics, etc, I'm going to correct her so that innocent lurkers are not beguiled


I'm off my soapbox for tonight.

Cheers!

[m_huber]

"If the woodpecker evolved the hard beak but not a hard skull, it would slam its head into a tree and die." Not an uncommon argument in creationist circles. Basic idea is that it would be impossible for an animal to evolve all of the needed parts for survival at once, and having half-made parts would result in a quick death.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'll post it. I already know what her reaction will be. It will be some series of furious ad hominems including atheist, misogynist, and slave to Dogmatic Scientism.
But now she'll have to rant against logic. Then you'll know she's lost.

~~ Paul

[The Drain]

You can also answer to her BS (do you know talk origin (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)? This website is invaluable to answer).




That is a brilliant site - thank you!

[m_huber]

Is talkorigins still maintained? All of the copyrights/updates seem to date back to 2006.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The ignorance about evolution theory is behind many many many YEC and ID arguments. And they just repeat the ignorance as if it is meaningful to the next fool and the next.

This argument in particular seems to totally negate the role random mutation and selection pressures which favor variation play in evolution.

For a rapidly reproducing organism, ongoing mutations occur. It is the accidental random mutation which then is able to adapt to the change in the environment.

For a more slowly reproducing organism, variation is selected for. A population with very little genetic diversity is susceptible to extinction when environmental stressors come along. A population with a lot of genetic diversity will have the adaptation waiting in the wings.

And the idea adaptations must be fully functional or else they do no good is simply false. We have all sorts of examples of "half of a wings" and the precursor to the flagella, the eye and the liver and so on to dispel these erroneous conclusions.


The way I've answered these smug little twits is to present them with pages of information on how the specific creature or organ they are using as an example actually evolved. In this case I'll need to look a bit. It seems to be the latest "flagella", "eye" or "wing" to be popularized by the desperate evolution deniers. It's like the fossil gaps, fill one and the IDers and Creationists will just claim now there are two gaps so there must be a god.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Talkorigins was attacked at the end of 2006. I'm not sure what's happened since then.

~~ Paul

[Skeptic Ginger]

It appears a number of others have answered this challenge on other forums. Here are some links to start with:

Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=260789)

Biological diversity, chemical mechanisms, and the evolutionary origins of bioluminescent systems (http://www.springerlink.com/content/nx16v26410u02386/) (Abstract only, fee for whole article)

THE EVOLUTION OF BIOLUMINESCENCE IN CANTHAROIDS
(COLEOPTERA: ELATEROIDEA) (http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe84p565.pdf)

TOL discusson: Angler Fishes (http://tolweb.org/Lophiiformes/21989)

TOL discussion: Seadevils, Devilfishes, Deep-sea Anglerfishes (http://tolweb.org/Ceratioidei/22000)

[arthwollipot]

I guess nested quotes don't work here.Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.

Seems like someone other than you is being dogmatic. I'd be inclined to go with the "You have been misinformed and lied to. How does that make you feel?" approach, and see if that works. Otherwise I'd take my most reasonable tone and start talking to the audience, saying things like "Of course, what she is saying is rubbish, and she's not interested in learning. Hopefully there are some people reading this who are interested in finding out what evolution is really all about, rather than what some dogmatic preacher keeps on screaming from the pulipt. Actual scientists have determined that..."

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Surely the answer is -- "But living things reproduce."

[jasonpatterson]

I guess nested quotes don't work here.


They ought to...

Hrm... Yeah, they do, the quote button just doesn't include the original passage. If you want to include that text as well, you can pull from multiple messages using the " button. It works across multiple pages of a thread as well. You need nested QUOTE tags to get it to do this though.


Is talkorigins still maintained? All of the copyrights/updates seem to date back to 2006.

Creationist arguments haven't been updated since about 26 or so though, so I'd say we're staying ahead. :)

[skip]

I just won't let any of her attacks on evolution theory stand until she shows some understanding of what it actually says.

I do it for the children. :^)


When I tried to explain evolution to my Daughter when she was a youngster, this is what I did… I took a page from a coloring book and had her put a piece of paper on top and trace the picture. Then without removing the first, had her place another piece on top and again trace it. We did this again and again without removing any of the papers. After we had a good stack we compared the first with the last… There was quite the difference… each paper is one generation. Go through all the papers and you can see the small little changes that made the last picture look like it did. It’s a bit simplistic but for a young child is seemed to work.

[Madalch]

When I tried to explain evolution to my Daughter when she was a youngster, this is what I did… I took a page from a coloring book and had her put a piece of paper on top and trace the picture. Then without removing the first, had her place another piece on top and again trace it. We did this again and again without removing any of the papers. After we had a good stack we compared the first with the last… There was quite the difference… each paper is one generation. Go through all the papers and you can see the small little changes that made the last picture look like it did. It’s a bit simplistic but for a young child is seemed to work.

It's still too complicated a demonstration for Ray Comfort.

[The Drain]

When I tried to explain evolution to my Daughter … .


I like that idea, Skip. I'm going to use it with mine. Thanks.

[Eos of the Eons]

Dead animals cause evolution by leaving others behind that survived whatever that killed those that didn't live. If they die before they reproduce, then there is usually some selective factor going on. Dead animals once lived, and if there are some that did live to reproduce, they then did allow their offspring the chance to spread the genes that allowed for that species to survive up to the point of the dead animal. So, dead animals lived because their ancestors evolved, and they did contribute to evolution if they had offspring before they died. So, ask her if they had offspring or not. If not, then they contribute to others species evolving instead.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dead animals cause evolution by leaving others behind that survived whatever that killed those that didn't live. If they die before they reproduce, then there is usually some selective factor going on. Dead animals once lived, and if there are some that did live to reproduce, they then did allow their offspring the chance to spread the genes that allowed for that species to survive up to the point of the dead animal. So, dead animals lived because their ancestors evolved, and they did contribute to evolution if they had offspring before they died. So, ask her if they had offspring or not. If not, then they contribute to others species evolving instead.

The explanation for traits like aposematism isn't so simple, though.

I think it relies on the fact that near relatives share enough genes so that even if the trait (chemical defense and warning coloration) only work if the predator eats you, it's a safe bet that your siblings who survived share that gene.

This is similar to the way the evolution of altruism is ordinarily explained. (And it's not easy to grasp, especially for someone who gets her science from the pulpit. It requires thinking of the selfish gene rather than the selfish organism.)

At any rate, I suspect it's stuff like this that inspired the "Dead animals don't evolve" thing.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I guess nested quotes don't work here.
Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.

And here's what it will look like. Start with this:
I guess nested quotes don't work here.
Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.

Snip the quote after the first quote (and subsequent nested posts) and add it (them) to the end.
I guess nested quotes don't work here.Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.

And....
I guess nested quotes don't work here.Not automatically, but they do if you copy them out manually.
Ta Da!

OK. I haven't used that one in a while. That usually shuts the pure Luddites right up.

I didn't mean to turn this into an attack on an unnamed adversary on an unnamed forum.

I just wanted to research the claim in the title: "Dead Animals Don't Evolve"

It doesn't actually mean anything. C/IDers tend to come up with insipid axoimatic platitudes that they think are profoundly wise and meaningful. The thing is they don't actually say anything for convey any actual infomation. My advice is just ingore it as the mental flatus that it is.

[Eos of the Eons]

The explanation for traits like aposematism isn't so simple, though.

I think it relies on the fact that near relatives share enough genes so that even if the trait (chemical defense and warning coloration) only work if the predator eats you, it's a safe bet that your siblings who survived share that gene.

This is similar to the way the evolution of altruism is ordinarily explained. (And it's not easy to grasp, especially for someone who gets her science from the pulpit. It requires thinking of the selfish gene rather than the selfish organism.)

At any rate, I suspect it's stuff like this that inspired the "Dead animals don't evolve" thing.
A. If you don't keep it simple, they won't get it at all.
B. The whole basis of evolution is traits that survive and change over time through living animals.
C. I also addressed how dead animals (ones with traits that may not have made them as quick as, or as smart as, or the same color as, etc.) can drive evolution.
If nothing died, taking traits with them that don't work as well as others for that situation that killed them (minus old age, etc.), then there would be no evolution.

I think you just didn't get most of what I was writing, as it was not just about aposematism.

So yeah, while their siblings may have most of the traits that their dead counterpart did, there may be that one thing in them that their dead sibling didn't have, or in that situation they would be dead too, leaving behind less close relatives that are likely more different.

Dead animals drive evolution.

[Cainkane1]

In an indirect sort of way a dead animal that hasn't reproduced has contributed to the evolutionary process simply by not adding its genes to the pool.

[Eos of the Eons]

In an indirect sort of way a dead animal that hasn't reproduced has contributed to the evolutionary process simply by not adding its genes to the pool.
You say that so informatively in so few words :) And yes, exactly. There could be factors that killed it because it didn't have whatever traits it needed to survive to reproduce. Whether that is getting eaten, or getting sick, or whatever.

If we all got HIV, some people have natural ways of thwarting it. Some have mutations that won't allow the virus to dock on their T-Cells. Others are able to live with the virus and not get sick. The rest of us would die, and any of their children not born with these genes to allow them to survive would die. Then the next selective pressure may select for other genes that cause an even bigger change in the population. Then, a million years later, humanity would even look different and not be able to reproduce with models that exist now as they are, who may or may not survive to have some around a million years from now, etc.

But luckily for us, we have another thing going for all of us, the ability to detect and then try to avoid the virus. This intelligence along with some people who can't get affected by HIV, keeps many many of us alive. Just some who don't change their behavior will still get it. So a bunch of us can still get infected by HIV just don't. So, for us, the dead don't really contribute to our evolution that much, but in some other cases they can.

Of course, there are things like bottle neck effects, getting isolated, etc. But even then selective pressures will kill some before they reproduce but not others.

There are many things that drive evolution, but death in those that haven't reproduced yet (couldn't thwart whatever killed them because they weren't fast enough or big enough or small enough or didn't have a mutation that saved them from a dread disease, etc.) will always be a factor in populations as a whole. There are millions of things that make something what it is, and not every living thing in a species are exactly alike. Just having a weird T-cell can cause one individual to survive what another with the same kind of T-cell as the majority (not weird) can't. All those with the non weird T-cell can die and leave the werid T-celled indiviuduals as the only ones left standing. Dying takes that vulnerable T-cell out of the factor, driving the evolution of a species on a different path. If HIV had never showed up, then it wouldn't matter, and no deaths stalls the evolution in that direction.

[Eos of the Eons]

So, individuals don't ever "evolve" anyways, so no kidding that dead animals don't evolve. But dead animals will drive evolution.

Fair enough?

[TheDaver]

Try pointing out to her that her argument is completely off the mark, in terms she can understand: e.g. “That’s like me arguing about how Moses couldn’t fit a dozen of every animal on the ark…”

[Dr Adequate]

Try ending each of your posts with the words "Every biologist in the world knows that dead animals don't evolve. In fact, they know even more about biology than you do, because they're biologists and you aren't."

[Andrew Wiggin]

When I've heard the 'dead animals don't evolve' statement, it's been used as an attack on the process of mutation as an agent of gradual change. The argument goes something like this.

Mutations large enough to cause any change are always immediatly fatal

Mutations small enough to not be fatal are too small to cause any change

Therefore, it follows 'logically' that any animal that had a mutation capable of making it change would die immediately and not be able to pass that mutation on.

Thus, goddidit

Of course this can be refuted so many different ways. I don't think anyone in the creation science/ID moronosphere is still using the 'all mutations are fatal' argument, because they're so clearly not.

A

[Eos of the Eons]

Well yeah. Even mutations that may not be beneficial are socially or sexually selected for. Blue eyes aren't exactly better or worse than brown. And we have these things called thumbs that are kinda cool. When did they enter into the picture for mammals? They aren't harmful at all. And this walking upright thing is kinda weird for anyone but apes like us. So many mutations that aren't harmful, along with people who have a mutation on their T-cells that lock HIV out. Being naturally immune to HIV isn't exactly deadly.

[jimbob]

Firstly I might point out that many Christians, including the most famous living one (the Pope) do accept evolution, so *they* don't think it is incompatible with their beliefs.

I would then ask about selective breeding.

Dogs have (with artificial selection) evolved into many different breeds with quite distinctive features and vastly different sizes.

Dairy cattle *without genetic engineering* have increased their milk yield significantly with selective breeding. Again, this is "evolution" over a short timescale.

EDIT: this is assuming that some of the audience are sincere in wanting to understand evolution.

[John Jones]

Firstly I might point out that many Christians, including the most famous living one (the Pope) do accept evolution, so *they* don't think it is incompatible with their beliefs.

I would then ask about selective breeding.

Dogs have (with artificial selection) evolved into many different breeds with quite distinctive features and vastly different sizes.

Dairy cattle *without genetic engineering* have increased their milk yield significantly with selective breeding. Again, this is "evolution" over a short timescale.

EDIT: this is assuming that some of the audience are sincere in wanting to understand evolution.

I don't want to go down that road. Comparing evolution to animal husbandry would be taken as proof of Intelligent Design.

[jimbob]

I don't want to go down that road. Comparing evolution to animal husbandry would be taken as proof of Intelligent Design.

I would disagree, it shows how evolution can happen with "Intelligent Selection"; however, it is a model for Natural Selection, but with far stronger selection pressures (close to 100% instead of often less than 1% in typical natural selection) in other words it shows accelerated evolution.

There are plenty of experiments that demonstrate evolution, and which have no artificial selection. The biggest (unintentional) one is taking place in hospitals across the world at the moment, as modern medicine is selecting for bacteria to evolve resistances to multiple antibiotics. It would seem a pretty perverse deity that give humans the brains to develop antibiotics, then guides bacterial evolution to overcome them...

[pakeha]

Here is one version (http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/MOGC%2006.htm) of the IDiots' argument.

It's basically a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution which begs the question as to intelligent design.

It typically doesn't help enlighten hardcore IDiots to point out that live animals don't evolve either.

I went around to the linked article.
Curiously enough the article ends with a defiant
"Dead animals don't evolve any further."

[John Jones]

I would disagree, it shows how evolution can happen with "Intelligent Selection"; however, it is a model for Natural Selection, but with far stronger selection pressures (close to 100% instead of often less than 1% in typical natural selection) in other words it shows accelerated evolution.

She's not smart enough to see the distinction.

[John Jones]

There are plenty of experiments that demonstrate evolution, and which have no artificial selection. The biggest (unintentional) one is taking place in hospitals across the world at the moment, as modern medicine is selecting for bacteria to evolve resistances to multiple antibiotics. It would seem a pretty perverse deity that give humans the brains to develop antibiotics, then guides bacterial evolution to overcome them...

See, in their world, that's microevolution. They no longer deny that it happens. They deny that these small changes from generation to generation can accumlate and lead to different forms.

[jimbob]

See, in their world, that's microevolution. They no longer deny that it happens. They deny that these small changes from generation to generation can accumlate and lead to different forms.

And of course, if you assume that the world is only 10k-years old*, then there wouldn't have been enough time for the observed variability of life to have evolved. Grr.




*I am guessing that she also believes this. Or is she not stupid enough to believe in Noah's Ark?

[m_huber]

The debate is for the lurkers. You want an argument that's going to change her mind? Find something in the Bible that says "Evolution happens, dumbo." Otherwise, don't bother trying to find a way to change a creationists' views.

[John Jones]

The debate is for the lurkers. You want an argument that's going to change her mind? Find something in the Bible that says "Evolution happens, dumbo." Otherwise, don't bother trying to find a way to change a creationists' views.

Oh, I'm not trying to change her alleged mind. She is utterly incapable of even understanding what evolution theory even says.

She still thinks Lamarkism is current evolution theory no matter how many times it's explained to her. That leaves her with a wealth of straw man arguments to drag out.

I'm just not gonna stand by while she makes incorrect claims and criticisms of evolution. Some lurker might be taken in by her nonsense.

[Eos of the Eons]

her "alleged" mind... LOL!!!

[Foster Zygote]

Oh, I'm not trying to change her alleged mind. She is utterly incapable of even understanding what evolution theory even says.

I'd venture to guess that it's worse than that. She's probably willfully ignorant. Evolution is easy to refute when it's based on her false assumptions about it so she simply refuses to learn the truth. Not that I'm disagreeing with your assessment. I find that willful ignorance is the most difficult form to overcome.

[jimbob]

Oh, I'm not trying to change her alleged mind. She is utterly incapable of even understanding what evolution theory even says.

She still thinks Lamarkism is current evolution theory no matter how many times it's explained to her. That leaves her with a wealth of straw man arguments to drag out.

I'm just not gonna stand by while she makes incorrect claims and criticisms of evolution. Some lurker might be taken in by her nonsense.

I'd venture to guess that it's worse than that. She's probably willfully ignorant. Evolution is easy to refute when it's based on her false assumptions about it so she simply refuses to learn the truth. Not that I'm disagreeing with your assessment. I find that willful ignorance is the most difficult form to overcome.



EDIT: this is assuming that some of the audience are sincere in wanting to understand evolution.

What about the audience, or have you posted a link to the discussion forum/thread?

[John Jones]

What about the audience, or have you posted a link to the discussion forum/thread?

I have posted a message there to anyone interested in learning what evolution theory says, and what it does NOT say, and a link to skeptiwiki and another to talkorigins.org. I assure them that what this IDiot is claiming in not modern evolution theory, and invited them to look for themselves.

I don't particularly want to discuss it with the willfully ignorant IDer, because I think she just gets off on the negative attention.

I try not to engage her - just correct her publicly, and point to legitmate sources on evolution theory.

[Soapy Sam]

Is there a link in this thread to the source site of the original discussion?
(If so, I have missed it).
Or do you prefer not to reveal it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

A. If you don't keep it simple, they won't get it at all.
B. The whole basis of evolution is traits that survive and change over time through living animals.
C. I also addressed how dead animals (ones with traits that may not have made them as quick as, or as smart as, or the same color as, etc.) can drive evolution.
If nothing died, taking traits with them that don't work as well as others for that situation that killed them (minus old age, etc.), then there would be no evolution.

I think you just didn't get most of what I was writing, as it was not just about aposematism.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I've been attempting to answer the question posed in the OP. (What is a Creationist talking about when he or she says, "Dead animals don't evolve"?)

And while I understand that these arguments are usually (probably always) the result of a Creationist misunderstanding or mischaracterizing evolution, I think the phrase used in the OP is either the result of confusing evolution by natural selection with Lamarckism or (more likely) a failure to understand how traits like aposematism can evolve through natural selection.

Again, aposematism is a little bit trickier to understand than, for example, how the tallest variant of giraffe offspring could be selected for.

I explained the mechanism wrong, though. It's not the same as the way altruism can evolve. It's actually more about selecting for a trait in individual variants because that trait more closely resembles the trait in the species as a whole. Again, this is a bit of a tricky concept--especially for YECs!

Here's what skeptiwiki says on aposematism:
So it's easy to see how aposematism is maintained by natural selection once it has evolved; it is a little harder to see how such a state of affairs could arise in the first place. For a poisonous or unpalatable animal benefits from being poisonous or unpalatable by resembling a member of its own species, all of which are also poisonous or unpalatable. It would seem on that basis that any variation in any superficial trait, including a tendency to aposematism, ought to have a selective disadvantage.

However, this need not be the case, if some variation arises which makes the variant organism resemble a member of its own species more than a typical member of its species does. This suggestion may seem paradoxical: let us give a more concrete example.

[Lucian]

I would disagree, it shows how evolution can happen with "Intelligent Selection"; however, it is a model for Natural Selection, but with far stronger selection pressures (close to 100% instead of often less than 1% in typical natural selection) in other words it shows accelerated evolution.

There are plenty of experiments that demonstrate evolution, and which have no artificial selection. The biggest (unintentional) one is taking place in hospitals across the world at the moment, as modern medicine is selecting for bacteria to evolve resistances to multiple antibiotics. It would seem a pretty perverse deity that give humans the brains to develop antibiotics, then guides bacterial evolution to overcome them...

Perhaps bacteria are actually God's Chosen People.

[John Jones]

Is there a link in this thread to the source site of the original discussion?
(If so, I have missed it).
Or do you prefer not to reveal it?

I never posted it. It's a woo-woo site, and this person likes to play a martyr for Christ.

It's a spin-off from Godlike Productions, so you can imagine the stuff that goes on there.

I'm not sure I want to give her the attention she so loves.

I was aking so I could figure out what the heck she was talking about when she says "DEAD ADNIMALS DON'T EVOLVE!!!!!". She is utterly incapapable of explaining herself or understanding logic. She'll just bold face or underline her previous statements and tell me to keep reading until it sinks into my "THICK SKULL!!!"

Since I pointed out that live animals don't evolve either, she has stopped repeating that mantra.

[John Jones]

And of course, if you assume that the world is only 10k-years old*, then there wouldn't have been enough time for the observed variability of life to have evolved. Grr.




*I am guessing that she also believes this. Or is she not stupid enough to believe in Noah's Ark?


I just saw this. I'm not sure how much YEC she believes.

She's more interested in attacking her flawed view of science in general, and evolution in particular.

She not the first thing about either, and when asked for evidence or even logical discourse, she claims we're martyring her for her christian beliefs, and bullying her for being a woman.

I try not to respond to either accusation.