A debate with some creationist friends

[Markus6]

I'm posting this plea for help in a number of forums/places. Here I'm hoping particularily for advice from other theistic evolutionists as most other places I go all the evolutionists are atheist/agnostic.

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.

 

[Mallon]

Your friends, not surprisingly, are ill-informed...

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 are extinct and humans are still around.

That's because he doesn't understand cladogenesis. Turn the table on him and tell him that's like saying "If I came from my mother, how can it be that my mother is still alive?" It's a display of a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

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.

Baloney. Pure and simple. Regardless of whether tribes of apes split up to search for new environs, the environment is changing around them. The world was very different tens of thousands of years ago where you're sitting.

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!

Two words: Project Steve.

3) One guy said that genetically humans are more similar to pigs than apes.

Genetically, humans are most similar to chimps. Your friend is likely thinking pig because pig and human hearts are transplantable. This has little to do with genetics, though, and everything to do with mechanics: pig and human hearts are similar in size.
Ask your friend to provide you with the science article he gleaned that from.

4) One disproof of evolution put forward was that the huge diversifying of life in the pre-cambrian (the guy who was telling me this said 'cambrian' and I quite enjoyed correcting him) explosion can't be explained by evolution. I know I've seen this claim before but I do need to find an explanation.

It is the Cambrian explosion.
To counter:
(a) The first fossils do not show up in the Cambrian. There is evidence for very primitive life in the Precambrian (Ediacaran fauna, stromatolites, etc.)
(b) The Cambrian "explosion" is a taphonomic effect -- hard shell tests evolved in the Cambrian, which preserve much better than soft tissue, and this is why we see increased fossil preservation in the Cambrian.

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?

Fossilization is very rare. There are papers that detail numbers, but I don't have those on my right now. Fossilization requires rapid post-mortem burial, calm depositional environment, and fine sediment (anoxia helps, too). Places like lagoons or bogs will suffice.

Hope that helps. Your friends are way out of their league.

 

[Markus6]

It is the Cambrian explosion.

Noted and being edited. How embarrassing.

 

[shernren]

A little bit of prophylactic (planning ahead for foreseen circumstances) thinking might also help here. If your friends' main reason for rejecting evolution is (as almost always) due to Christian fundamentalism, then you should point out that many people are able to successfully reconcile evolution and Christianity. Notable examples are Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin's God) and Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project (The Language of God). What really helps is to show that since there are both theistic and atheistic evolutionists, evolution really doesn't have much to do with atheism. The logical conclusion of evolution (and science in general) is really agnosticism, which is then tipped by metaphysical considerations into atheism in some people and theism in others. Evolution has nothing to do with the latter choice.

Hope this helps.

 

[gluadys]

Fortunately I'm not debating against expert biologists.

Sometimes this can actually be a problem. A non-expert may disregard evidence because he does not understand its importance. So it helps not only to know the evidence, but why it is important to the theory.

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.

Do you actually mean one organism or one species of organism? It's a crucial difference. Science does not claim that all the diversity of life came literally from one organism. In fact, now that we have a better handle on the importance of lateral transfer of genetic material in unicellular organisms, it would be difficult to insist on even an ancestor that was one single species.

With asexual reproduction it is even difficult at times to establish what is a species among unicellular populations. With very similar organisms, it is often a judgment call.

Nevertheless, we can say that for most of the history of the earth there were only unicellular populations on earth, and only for about the last sixth to seventh of earth's history do we have multi-celled populations. We even know of some species which are unicellular during part of their life history and multi-cellular during other parts of their life history. And we have an example of environmental pressure (in this case the introduction of a predator) inducing multi-cellularity in a unicellular species. This may be news to your friends. It is an indication that it is possible to move via evolution from unicellular populations to multi-cellular populations.

It would also be important to note that although plants, animals and many fungi (even some protists, such as kelp) are multi-cellular, they did not all have the same unicellular ancestors. Terrestrial plants are more closely related to green algae than to any other unicellular group. Fungi and animals are more closely related to a unicellar group called opisthokonts. And kelps are more closely related to such groups as diatoms and dinoflagellates.

I expect to hear a distinction between 'macro' and 'micro'-evolution from them before too long.

No doubt, and this is usually based on some misunderstanding of macro-evolution. Some think it means a significant visible change that occurs suddenly. Others that it means more complexity and some kind of improvement. Some will use the term "new information". Another common misconception is that it refers to one established species turning into another established species of very different character--the classic "dogs into cats" image.

Actually macro-evolution simply refers to the emergence of a species barrier between two populations which formerly intebred freely. The differences between the now separated species are often visually trivial when speciation first occurs, and only become significant when the two populations continue to evolve separately over many generations.

For example, a comparison of the ancestor of the horse and the ancestor of the rhinoceros shows only a few trivial differences in the teeth. Any non-expert skeptic who was shown such a trivial difference between two species would doubt there is sufficient reason to call them different species, and would discount this as a sample of "macro-evolution". But they would doubt that a rhino and a horse could have a common ancestor too. Yet both of these family histories are well-attested in the fossil record.

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.

To deal with the second point first, ask how come gorillas and chimpanzees (and for that matter baboons and monkeys) do live in separate groups now. Sure they are territorial, but you don't find the whole population in one place, but scattered in small family groups. If they are so territorial they never split, how did any of the separate groups get established in the first place?

Environmental changes are pertinent too. Most apes prefer tropical jungles, but when climate changes (or humans) reduce the distribution of this environment, they often leave isolated patches of jungle with non-jungle between. This isolates the population in one section from the other, and that is all that is required for evolution to occur separately in each group, making them more and more distinct from each other.

For the first point, it is necessary to understand cladistics and insist that humans did not evolve from apes. Rather apes and humans had a common ancestor from which both evolved. I think the simplest way to deal with the silliness of this question is to use a simple family-tree analogy. Do they have uncles or aunts? Do their uncles and aunts have children? If the answer to both questions is "yes" then they have first cousins. (In any case they will know what a first cousin is.) Do they and their first cousins have a common ancestor? Yes--grandparents who are the ancestor of both their own parents and their cousins' parents. Asking why apes still exist is like asking, if you and your cousins have the same grandparents, how can you have cousins?

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!

Ask him to name seven. Then refer him to Project Steve as previously suggested---over seven hundred names, and only scientists with "Steve" or some form of "Steve" as part of their name can sign on.

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.

This was well answered above. Our similarity to chimps is so strong, some people are suggesting that we revive Linnaeus' original proposal and list us both as species in the same genus.

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.

A huge problem for Darwin and his contemporaries because micro-fossils had not yet been discovered. But we have many examples of fossils prior to the Cambrian now, including some possible progenitors of some Cambrian species. A good resource for those who wish to look in detail at the Cambrian explosion is "In the Blink of an Eye" -- a popular explanation of the "light-switch" theory of why we get the sudden emergence of hard protective parts in so many Cambrian species. (Of course, this is "sudden" in a geological sense--about 10 million years or so, not overnight.)

The idea behind the "light switch theory" is that the emergence of the first true eye led to the first true predators, who could see and hunt their prey. Earlier species had light receptors and were sensitive to the presence and sometimes direction of light, but did not yet have a clear image of their surroundings. A true eye allowed an animal to really hunt for the first time, and made both protective armour and offensive weapons such as killer claws much to be desired.

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?

Fossilization is very rare, and even when it does occur, it usually happens in places not easily accessible, like the bottom of lakes and seas. That is why by far the most plentiful fossils are those of small marine organisms. And even most of those don't come directly from the ocean, but from rocks that have since been lifted above water into mountains.

In addition to fossilization itself being rare, fossils that were formed may not have been preserved through all the geological changes that have occurred since the death of the organism. And then the ones that have been preserved have to be accessible, and the accessible ones have to be discovered.

Here is a fun and simple explanation of how to become a fossil.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/explorations/tours/fossil/5to8/Intro.html

One thing that will probably come up is whether the earth is old enough for evolution to have happened. Point out that biology does not deal with that question. The age of the earth is established by geology and physics (radiometry) independently of evolution. In fact geology established that the earth was very old three decades before Darwin published his theory, and it was only because he was convinced of the old age of the earth by his readings in geology that he even contemplated the possibility of evolution.

 

[Mallon]

I just got back from the bookstore, where I noticed "The Anti-Creationism Handbook". It's authored by one of the folks over at talkorigins.com. Might be worth picking up. It counters nearly every creationist claim I've come across. Alternatively, you can read it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[vossler]

Quite interesting, did you ever think to seek God for an answer, one who's purpose wasn't to outwit your friends and prove your intellectual superiority? Given that you yourself believe in something that you have admitted to not having sufficient knowledge of, did you ever even consider that you might actually be wrong in your belief?

 

[Deamiter]

Quite interesting, did you ever think to seek God for an answer, one who's purpose wasn't to outwit your friends and prove your intellectual superiority? Given that you yourself believe in something that you have admitted to not having sufficient knowledge of, did you ever even consider that you might actually be wrong in your belief?

An extremely good point! I would never have ended up a theistic evolutionist if I hadn't sought wisdom in the scriptures and in prayer. I would probably have ended up YEC if I hadn't searched the scriptures so much in a conservative (mostly YEC) school, but many who study science end up rejecting God altogether based on the common YEC teaching that the creation account must either be historical or the entire Bible must be rejected.

Do look into the hundreds of years of evidence that's been collected on these subjects, but never forget to search the scriptures for the spiritual truths that are complimented by science quite nicely!

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I just got back from the bookstore, where I noticed "The Anti-Creationism Handbook". It's authored by one of the folks over at talkorigins.com. Might be worth picking up. It counters nearly every creationist claim I've come across. Alternatively, you can read it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

As a supplement, you can read responses to these arguments by YEC's here: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

 

[KerrMetric]

As a supplement, you can read responses to these arguments by YEC's here: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

Maybe it is because I have had a couple of Scotches tonight - but the responses on that link are almost unreadable from a grammatical standpoint.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Maybe it is because I have had a couple of Scotches tonight - but the responses on that link are almost unreadable from a grammatical standpoint.

That's entirely possible. If you have specific examples I will fix them up.

 

[Mallon]

As a supplement, you can read responses to these arguments by YEC's here: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

I have only started through the list and I am quite disheartened by some of the poor responses I've seen so far. Take the reptile-mammal transition response page, for example (http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_There_are_gaps_between_reptiles_and_mammals). It makes the silly demand that in order to establish relationships between Mammalia and Reptilia, fossils preserving hair, nipples, and hearts must first be found - notably all soft-tissue that rarely fossilizes. The gradual transition in skeletal morphology just isn't enough. The reptile-mammal jaw transition is purely coincidence, according to creationists.

Further responses regarding the dating of Archaeopteryx to pre-feathered dromaeosaurs has been addressed for decades in the scientific literature and shows a complete misunderstanding of branching evolution by the creationists.

I also note:

1) In attempting to refute some of talk.origins' arguments, Creation Wiki (ironically) defers to other arguments already refuted by talk.origins (e.g., Bombardier beetle example).
2) The lack of response to literally dozens of points made by talk.origins speaks volumes.

 

[grimbly]

I tried reading them without any scotch and had the same problems as KM. Very poor rebutals. D+ a pity grade.

I realize the difficulty of mounting a decent rebuttal when 99.999+% of the evidence crushes your position. Wouldn't it just be easier to accept reality for what it is. maybe that's just my quirky nature.