A debate with some creationist friends

[Markus6]

I'm posting this plea for help in a number of forums/places. I've posted in the christian only section but also here so I can get the input of as many people with knowledge on this topic as possible.

I went to the pub last night with a group of friends from home. While walking home a girl brought up the recent show on BBC 4: 'The trouble with atheism'. Apparently Dawkins was featured on the show and from this we got on to talking about evolution. Suprisingly none of my friends seemed to fully accept the theory of evolution and I got into a bit of a debate about it with a couple of guys, one of whom seemed to have done quite a bit of reading on the subject. As it was late and cold we gave up but someone suggested we continue the discussion another time over a pint of beer.

So here's the point of the thread: I need to read up and learn about the theory of evolution so I can successfully defend it. (For those who know about the English education system) I didn't study biology even at GCSE thought I am very scientifically minded (A-levels in maths, further maths, physics and chemistry and I'm in the last year of a degree in engineering). The creation vs. evolution debate has interested me for over a year and i've been an avid reader/occasionaly poster of forum threads of this subject so I guess you could call me an interested amateur.

Fortunately I'm not debating against expert biologists. One (the guy who seems to have read up on the subject) didn't study biology at GCSE either and was never quite a match for me academically. I know less about the other guy though he is in I.T. I'm not 100% sure if they could be considered creationists. From what I heard about their beliefs they accept that evolution happens but not that it can account for all the diversity on earth from one organism. I expect to hear a distinction between 'macro' and 'micro'-evolution from them before too long.

To get you guys started here are some issues that came up in the short time we were talking. I know most of their claims are wrong, and sometimes I know why. I'd like to be able to explain to them why they are wrong in the easiest and most succinct way.

1) This one seems quite ridiculous though I'm not quite sure how to tell him he's wrong. One of the guys said he didn't get how apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them by natural selection. I tried to explain how if the apes were split up and put in different environments then they would evolve differently eventually producing different species. He countered this by saying that apes are very territorrial and always stick together so they'd never split to evolve differently or travel far enough to encounter different enviroments.

but I need to know the best way to counter this and any facts about apes actually splitting up would be great.

2) One of my friends said there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. I told him he'd better tell a biologist that. He countered by saying that a lot of biologists don't accept evolution. So I need to find data that proves him wrong!

3) One guy said that genetically humans are more similar to pigs than apes. I have no idea where this claim comes from but it would be great to find out and also prove him wrong (if he is) or explain how that fits into an evolutionary model.

4) One disproof of evolution put forward was that the huge diversifying of life in the cambrian explosion can't be explained by evolution. I know I've seen this claim before but I do need to find an explanation.

5) As part of a bodged answer to 4 I mentioned that the chance of a dead animal becoming a fossil was exceedingly small. Something to back this up would be good. What conditions are required for fossilisation and how likely are they to occur?

This should get you started but any other reading you could give me on the subject would be great. I appreciate any effort you guys put into answering me, hopefully it will help me show the light of science to some of my friends.
This thread is clearly going to turn into another creation vs. evolution debate but it will be useful to see creationist counters to arguments. If we could try and keep everything simple so I can understand it and thus use it that would be great.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Here's something I wrote for that purpose.
http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Taxonomy.html

 

[Hydra009]

So here's the point of the thread: I need to read up and learn about the theory of evolution so I can successfully defend it. (For those who know about the English education system) I didn't study biology even at GCSE thought I am very scientifically minded (A-levels in maths, further maths, physics and chemistry and I'm in the last year of a degree in engineering). The creation vs. evolution debate has interested me for over a year and i've been an avid reader/occasionaly poster of forum threads of this subject so I guess you could call me an interested amateur.

Talk origins, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and the Understanding Evolution site have a ton of materials for you. The C&E thread archive sticky at the top of this forum has some too.

I'm not 100% sure if they could be considered creationists. From what I heard about their beliefs they accept that evolution happens but not that it can account for all the diversity on earth from one organism. I expect to hear a distinction between 'macro' and 'micro'-evolution from them before too long.

That's actually pretty common from creationists. The new technique is to state that "microevolution" (i.e. examples of evolution that are undeniable) is accepted but not "macroevolution" (usually something that would falsify the ToE if correct, like cats giving birth to dogs or something not yet well understood like abiogenesis) is not accepted.

1) This one seems quite ridiculous though I'm not quite sure how to tell him he's wrong. One of the guys said he didn't get how apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them by natural selection.

Yeah, it's ridiculous, and even AIG disowned it, but that doesn't stop it from circulating in creationist circles.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html

The easiest counterpoint would be to point out obvious examples where something new didn't kill off its predecessor - if many Americans came from England, why are the English still around? If rock and roll came from country music, why is country music still around? Etc.

2) One of my friends said there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. I told him he'd better tell a biologist that. He countered by saying that a lot of biologists don't accept evolution. So I need to find data that proves him wrong!

Project Steve to the rescue!

Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

3) One guy said that genetically humans are more similar to pigs than apes. I have no idea where this claim comes from but it would be great to find out and also prove him wrong (if he is) or explain how that fits into an evolutionary model.

Oh geez. That's pretty ridiculous. The claim is false, btw. Humans are not more similar to pigs than apes. He probably got this nugget from the use of pigs for organ transplant in humans and Gish's infamous bullfrog claim.

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

Btw, when pressed, he wasn't able to support his claim. I wonder why.

I've found that with a number of creationists claims similar to that, you could just ask the creationist to cite his/her sources. For the stuff that was made up on the spot, you won't get any.

4) One disproof of evolution put forward was that the huge diversifying of life in the cambrian explosion can't be explained by evolution. I know I've seen this claim before but I do need to find an explanation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

5) As part of a bodged answer to 4 I mentioned that the chance of a dead animal becoming a fossil was exceedingly small. Something to back this up would be good. What conditions are required for fossilisation and how likely are they to occur?

It varies, so I don't think you're going to find an exact % chance, but it definitely is pretty rare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils

This thread is clearly going to turn into another creation vs. evolution debate

And maybe an apologetics one if we get lucky.

Just joking. But seriously, yeah, any thread here becomes either a debate (which is sometimes only vaguely related to the OP) or buried.

 

[Pesto]

The easiest counterpoint would be to point out obvious examples where something new didn't kill off its predecessor - if many Americans came from England, why are the English still around? If rock and roll came from country music, why is country music still around? Etc.

Or, if Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?

According to cladistics, all Christians would also be considered Jews. They are simply Jews who think the Messiah has already come.

 

[Baggins]

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4424

The first 8 papers of this symposium show the amount of work that is being done in the field of PreCambrian life, they show that life didn't spring up fully formed in the Cambrian but that there was multicellular life for tens of millions of years before the Cambrian, and what happens in the Cambrian is that the chances of fossilisation increase due to the evolution of hard external skeletons.

These are proper geological papers so if they are a bit taxing for you then look up Cambrian explosion on wikipedia and follow the links.

There are many reasons why fossils are rare before the Cambrian, but rare doesn't mean non-existant.

The diversification of life at this point has a number of explanations, the major one being that it occured soon after the end of the worst Ice Age that the earth has ever known, this lead to vast increase in new niches as shelf areas became flooded. Other things like the development of predation and an increase in atmospheric oxygen may also have played a role.

I would challenge your friends to present their evidence, it seems to me they are parroting things that they have heard and that they will have little or no evidence to back up their claims, whereas you will be armed with pages of evidence.

Good luck

 

[RedAndy]

Or, if Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?

According to cladistics, all Christians would also be considered Jews. They are simply Jews who think the Messiah has already come.

More to the point, why are there still Christians? They should have been superseded by Mormons!

 

[rambot]

I don't understand how Christians just say stuff like:

One of my friends said there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. I told him he'd better tell a biologist that. He countered by saying that a lot of biologists don't accept evolution. So I need to find data that proves him wrong!

I'm going to assume that he did NOT provide evidence to back up HIS point.
Why not just ask him to provide evidence for that nonsense.

 

[Split Rock]

1) This one seems quite ridiculous though I'm not quite sure how to tell him he's wrong. One of the guys said he didn't get how apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them by natural selection. I tried to explain how if the apes were split up and put in different environments then they would evolve differently eventually producing different species. He countered this by saying that apes are very territorrial and always stick together so they'd never split to evolve differently or travel far enough to encounter different enviroments.

but I need to know the best way to counter this and any facts about apes actually splitting up would be great.

So your friend is an expert on apes, huh? Other animals are territorial too... like ants for example. How many places on earth do not have ants today? How many species and genera of ants are they? If there are too many individuals in an area or if there is a reduction in resources (like a famine, or drought) then even territorial animals will migrate. In any case, territorialism has nothing to do with speciation. Migration can be a factor in speciation, but is not required for speciation.

2) One of my friends said there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. I told him he'd better tell a biologist that. He countered by saying that a lot of biologists don't accept evolution. So I need to find data that proves him wrong!

Nonsense. Do a PubMed search on "evolution" or "natural selection" and see how many hits you get. There are hundreds of papers published in the scientific literature on the subject every year. In addition, there is a very low percentage of biologists who reject evolution, and they are the ones who study it.

3) One guy said that genetically humans are more similar to pigs than apes. I have no idea where this claim comes from but it would be great to find out and also prove him wrong (if he is) or explain how that fits into an evolutionary model.

Nonsense. There are genes that we and chimps share that are identical (I think it is 20%). The others have on average only a few basepair differences.

4) One disproof of evolution put forward was that the huge diversifying of life in the cambrian explosion can't be explained by evolution. I know I've seen this claim before but I do need to find an explanation.

More nonsense. Ask them why. One thing to bring up is the fact that hard body parts evolved during this time, which increased the fossilization rate and also allowed for new adaptive radiation.

5) As part of a bodged answer to 4 I mentioned that the chance of a dead animal becoming a fossil was exceedingly small. Something to back this up would be good. What conditions are required for fossilisation and how likely are they to occur?

Not only is fossilization rare, but the possibility of finding the fossil later is going to be exceedingly small. Ask your friend how many fossilized Passenger Pigeons they have seen. There used to be thousands in huge flocks, and over a small period of time they were driven to extinction. Where are all the fossils?

This should get you started but any other reading you could give me on the subject would be great.

"Evolution, the Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer is a very good book for non-scientists and has lots of illustrations. I also recommend the Berkely website (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/) mentioned earlier.

Feel free to ask any other questions. Good Luck.

 

[Aron-Ra]

there is a very low percentage of biologists who reject evolution, and they are the ones who study it.

I think you forgot to put the word, 'not' there.

The United States is the only 1st world "Christian" nation (roughly 85% Christian) with any significant percentage of creationists. Most Christians world-wide tend to be theistic evolutionists. But the American general public is unique in Christendom because it is almost evenly divided over the notion of creationism. However, that is definitely not the case among scientists, and particularly not in those in fields immediately relevant to evolution;

"According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%"
--ReligiousTolerance.org

So according to this, 99.86% of biologists and geologists reject creationism as superstitious pseudoscience. ​

 

[BoranJarami]

While I am a creationist, I would like to make one quick point.

2) One of my friends said there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. I told him he'd better tell a biologist that. He countered by saying that a lot of biologists don't accept evolution. So I need to find data that proves him wrong!

Wheather or not most scientists agree with the theory of evolution is irrelevent to the issue of which is correct. Consensus does not mean fact. There have been a number of issues in the past that the majority of scientists have believed and they turned out to be wrong (the structure of the atom for example).

Frankly, to simply say that there is a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument. Pay this claim no mind and instead look at the individual "proof".

 

[rambot]

Frankly, to simply say that there is a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument. Pay this claim no mind and instead look at the individual "proof".

Whatever your intent was with that quote.... THIS:

a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument

reads very funny!

 

[USincognito]

While I am a creationist, I would like to make one quick point.

Wheather or not most scientists agree with the theory of evolution is irrelevent to the issue of which is correct. Consences does not mean fact. There have been a number of issues in the past that the majority of scientists have believed and they turned out to be wrong (the structure of the atom for example).

While technically this is correct, there's a difference between an issue (your structure of the atom example) and a conclusion reached from a systemic standpoint (common ancestry and evolution for example).

Frankly, to simply say that there is a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument. Pay this claim no mind and instead look at the individual "proof".

When respondants here, especially those who have been debating and presenting the myriad evidences for a long time reply with that, they're just responding, not actually making an arugument. Most of that "lot of {evidence}" can be found in the C&E thread archive.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

While I am a creationist, I would like to make one quick point.

Wheather or not most scientists agree with the theory of evolution is irrelevent to the issue of which is correct. Consences does not mean fact. There have been a number of issues in the past that the majority of scientists have believed and they turned out to be wrong (the structure of the atom for example).

Frankly, to simply say that there is a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument. Pay this claim no mind and instead look at the individual "proof".

this is a curious argument.
yes, there have been a number of notable cases where the majority were wrong, my favorite are ulcers as infections and prions as causing BSE. but this error rate is actually rather low, and it is a warning to be careful not a blanket justification not to consider what is the consensus in any particular area. The consensus, especially in science, is a good measure of the rightness of a theory. When theory's are young and poorly supported there maybe only 1/3 supported each of 3 theories, but as a field matures and the data is collated and theories developed and tested, it is a good thing that the consensus rises to a supermajority.
is this proof that the theory is right? of course not, science doesn't deal in proof but evidence.

Frankly, to simply say that there is a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument. Pay this claim no mind and instead look at the individual "proof".


do you mean that poorly evidenced theories are as good as well evidenced ones? or are you saying that don't be overwhelmed by the sheer mass of evidence, pick one topic and delve into it in depth and try to understand it on a substantial and well researched level? the first question is answered no...well evidenced theories are better than poorly evidenced one. and the second question is yes, diving into depth is a good thing. pick your poison and learn about it.

 

[BoranJarami]

do you mean that poorly evidenced theories are as good as well evidenced ones? or are you saying that don't be overwhelmed by the sheer mass of evidence, pick one topic and delve into it in depth and try to understand it on a substantial and well researched level?

Neither, the friend that the OP was talking about made the argument that there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. This blanket statement is a horrible excuse for an argument and the OP sould not even bother dealing with it, instead he should focus on the "proof" that his friend refered to.

This is just a big misunderstanding that is completely my fault. I should have quoted the statement I was referenceing. I will kick myself and then correct my mistake.

Whatever your intent was with that quote.... THIS: Quote:
a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument
reads very funny!

lol

 

[Valkhorn]

Neither, the friend that the OP was talking about made the argument that there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. This blanket statement is a horrible excuse for an argument and the OP sould not even bother dealing with it, instead he should focus on the "proof" that his friend refered to.

I did the same thing. I looked at the evidence, researched it, and that's why I accept Evolution. It's just plain as day.

 

[Markus6]

Neither, the friend that the OP was talking about made the argument that there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. This blanket statement is a horrible excuse for an argument and the OP sould not even bother dealing with it, instead he should focus on the "proof" that his friend refered to.

From the minute we started talking he used lots of unsupported bold claims and emmotive language. "Evolution is one of the most over hyped claims ever" and "it's all propaganda" for example as well as the classics "there's loads of evidence against evolution" and "loads of biologists don't accept it". This sort of language would probably have scared off someone not interested in the creation/evolution debate (and probably was designed to) because they'd assume this guy actually had studied it in depth and come to the conclusions himself. However, having seen most of the 'disproofs' of evolution and seen people debunk them this sort of language just got my blood boiling and made me itch to debate the specifics. If we do talk these bold unsupported claims will be the first thing I attack, making sure he only makes them once he's given sufficient proof to back them up.

 

[Aron-Ra]

While I am a creationist, I would like to make one quick point.

Wheather or not most scientists agree with the theory of evolution is irrelevent to the issue of which is correct. Consensus does not mean fact.

True.

There have been a number of issues in the past that the majority of scientists have believed and they turned out to be wrong (the structure of the atom for example).

This illustrates something about the way science works. When I took cellular biology two years ago, they were still teaching the Bohr model -even though they knew it was "wrong". Whenever there is a significant revision in science, it takes a while to filter down to the education system, I'm sorry to say. That's also been the problem with phylogenetic systematics. Anyway, they knew for a long time that there were problems with Bohr's depiction of the atom. But they had to keep using it because at least it explained some things in a practical way. You can't discard a theory until you have either disproved it, or come up with a better one to take its place. In this case, the quantum model replaced the Bohr model. Just last semester, one of my chemistry professors said; "Forget everything your earlier instructors may have taught you about electron orbitals. Electrons don't orbit. They do -something else. We don't know exactly what they do yet, or even what they are really. But we know they don't orbit the nucleus, at least not in the same sense that planets orbit the sun."

Frankly, to simply say that there is a lot of proof is a poor excuse for an argument. Pay this claim no mind and instead look at the individual "proof".

Care to put that to the test? Because to my experience, creationism exists solely in denial. That's what apologetics is!

I can prove to your satisfaction that we are evolved apes, that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is or ever was for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and that it is the only option which provides any practical application in the real world; which is why we have billion-dollar industries dependant on its accuracy. It will take some time to explain this to you adequately because it has been my experience that creationists don't even want to know anything they don't want to believe. I've made this exact challenge dozens of times over the last few years, and there have only ever been five takers: Three dropped out in or before the second round -refusing to proceed any further. One lost on all points by the fourth round, and later claimed to have won, and the fifth is now an evolutionist -and will be for the rest of her life. So it will be with you too. But don't lament that, because as a bonus, I will also prove that creationism is based on a series of foundational falsehoods that 'professional' creationists know to be false and even admit as much, in addition to many other supportive comments which they won't admit to but which we can still prove are lies. Creationism isn't about truth by any stretch, and it interested in knowledge either.

All this I can prove to you very easily in the course of a dozen mutual exchanges between you and I right here in this forum. If, after that, you are still unconvinced and not yet an evolutionist yourself, then at least you'll be able to brag about that to your creationist friends.

The only trick to that is that you must properly address every point or query ignoring none. Any point of evidence levied against your position, which you don't post an objection to, will be taken as a point of agreement between us. But if you repeatedly ignore direct questions, then this will become just another item in my archive of debates "won" by default. Also, I have noticed some creationists here who follow a failed argument with declarations of having won the point, or even the whole debate, even when it is painfully obvious they haven't and couldn't believe otherwise. I don't yet know how to counter that. Perhaps if you choose a couple moderators, one from either side of the fence, to insure your accountability?

So, if you'd like to take me up on that challenge, we can meet in the formal debate forum, or we could just open an informal thread here, which is what I would prefer to do. You'll need to open with whatever questions you have, and a statement of whatever you need to see to be convinced, and why. I of course must adhere to all the same rules as you when I post my answers. I'll give you a couple weeks to respond to each post, if you like, because having "an overwhelming preponderance of demonstrable evidence in every relevent field of scientific study" means there will be an awful lot to cover, and I want you to be prepared for that and committed to see the debate to its logical conclusion. Because giving you an education is the only alternative I can think of to simply telling you there is a lot of proof. So what do you say?

 

[BoranJarami]

I would wecome a mutual discussion on this issue.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I would wecome a mutual discussion on this issue.

Wonderful! Thank you. I would welcome such an opportunty before I stop participating in this panel altogether in the next few weeks. I'll set up a thread for it and copy this message there. You post your initial questions and your contentions or criteria you expect me to meet. But my response will be the close of the first mutual exchange.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm posting this plea for help in a number of forums/places. I've posted in the christian only section but also here so I can get the input of as many people with knowledge on this topic as possible.

I went to the pub last night with a group of friends from home. While walking home a girl brought up the recent show on BBC 4: 'The trouble with atheism'. Apparently Dawkins was featured on the show and from this we got on to talking about evolution. Suprisingly none of my friends seemed to fully accept the theory of evolution and I got into a bit of a debate about it with a couple of guys, one of whom seemed to have done quite a bit of reading on the subject. As it was late and cold we gave up but someone suggested we continue the discussion another time over a pint of beer.

So here's the point of the thread: I need to read up and learn about the theory of evolution so I can successfully defend it. (For those who know about the English education system) I didn't study biology even at GCSE thought I am very scientifically minded (A-levels in maths, further maths, physics and chemistry and I'm in the last year of a degree in engineering). The creation vs. evolution debate has interested me for over a year and i've been an avid reader/occasionaly poster of forum threads of this subject so I guess you could call me an interested amateur.

Fortunately I'm not debating against expert biologists. One (the guy who seems to have read up on the subject) didn't study biology at GCSE either and was never quite a match for me academically. I know less about the other guy though he is in I.T. I'm not 100% sure if they could be considered creationists. From what I heard about their beliefs they accept that evolution happens but not that it can account for all the diversity on earth from one organism. I expect to hear a distinction between 'macro' and 'micro'-evolution from them before too long.

To get you guys started here are some issues that came up in the short time we were talking. I know most of their claims are wrong, and sometimes I know why. I'd like to be able to explain to them why they are wrong in the easiest and most succinct way.

1) This one seems quite ridiculous though I'm not quite sure how to tell him he's wrong. One of the guys said he didn't get how apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them by natural selection. I tried to explain how if the apes were split up and put in different environments then they would evolve differently eventually producing different species. He countered this by saying that apes are very territorrial and always stick together so they'd never split to evolve differently or travel far enough to encounter different enviroments.

but I need to know the best way to counter this and any facts about apes actually splitting up would be great.

2) One of my friends said there is lots of proof that evolution is wrong. I told him he'd better tell a biologist that. He countered by saying that a lot of biologists don't accept evolution. So I need to find data that proves him wrong!

3) One guy said that genetically humans are more similar to pigs than apes. I have no idea where this claim comes from but it would be great to find out and also prove him wrong (if he is) or explain how that fits into an evolutionary model.

4) One disproof of evolution put forward was that the huge diversifying of life in the cambrian explosion can't be explained by evolution. I know I've seen this claim before but I do need to find an explanation.

5) As part of a bodged answer to 4 I mentioned that the chance of a dead animal becoming a fossil was exceedingly small. Something to back this up would be good. What conditions are required for fossilisation and how likely are they to occur?

This should get you started but any other reading you could give me on the subject would be great. I appreciate any effort you guys put into answering me, hopefully it will help me show the light of science to some of my friends.
This thread is clearly going to turn into another creation vs. evolution debate but it will be useful to see creationist counters to arguments. If we could try and keep everything simple so I can understand it and thus use it that would be great.

Welll, frankly, if you are really interested in defending evolution, my suggestion to you is to find out as much as you can about Creationism and balance that with an understanding of Evolutionism. You need to understand what it is your are debating about. Simply knowing about the logic with regard to Evolutionism is not going to provide you with a means to question Creationism. My guess is that you already know far more about Evolutionism particularly if you attended public institutions. This is where mediocrisy has its foothold. So my advice to you is fully understand the "enemy" or you will simply fail to tilt the scales in your favor...