Tetrapod Help Me!!!!!!

gringojj

I am trying to explain to my muslim brother in law how evolution works. All he ever does is tell me how Darwin was wrong about things and he seems to equate Darwin not having all the answers to mean that evolution isnt possible, then seems to default to creation as fact. Its really annoying. So my question is, without faith, is there any evidence for hard evidence for creation? I am not talking about what was written in books thousands of years ago. And is there any hard evidence for evolution? I was wondering if anyone knows of a link to an evolution tree, one that isnt just a straight line. He told me its just not possible that a deer turns into a horse. I told him he is absolutely right. Any help would be appreciated especially from my good friend tetrapod!

Quotes

Please excuse my jumping in before Tetra.

There are many excellent sources of information about Evolution. Here are a couple:

* Talk.Origins Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org/
* (Book) In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong by Chris McGowan

Sounds like your friend is using the same old, tired, worn-out, and throroughly disproven arguments. For example, equating "Darwinism" (one proposed mechanism) with "Evolution" and/or "Abiogenesis".

Prepare for the "it's just a theory" claim, which demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Scientific Method and what a "theory" really is. It doesn't mean GUESS, it doesn't mean HYPOTHESIS. I can't wait for the next time someone tries this "theory" claim with me. I will respond: Yes, it is a theory. Like the theory of Plate Tectonics. Tectonic Theory may be incorrect or even seriously flawed, but until someone tells that to the FAULT LINES, the Earth continues to shake and quake. See, the Earth doesn't know it's just a "theory".

~Quotes, of the "Trusts Science enough to get on an airplane" class

Big Dog

To get the god known as Tetrapod to respond you must offer a goat at midnight on your hibachi grill, and if he is much pleased with the sacrifice he will answer your request.

googlemagoogle

tetraGod doesn't speak to many nowadays. but you can direct a prayer to me and i may personally PM tetraGod for an answer. please don't forget to donate on paypal.

tetrapod.sapien

omg LOL!!,

you guys are hilarious. "tetragod" he he

gringo,

So my question is, without faith, is there any evidence for hard evidence for creation? I am not talking about what was written in books thousands of years ago. And is there any hard evidence for evolution? I was wondering if anyone knows of a link to an evolution tree, one that isnt just a straight line. He told me its just not possible that a deer turns into a horse. I told him he is absolutely right. Any help would be appreciated especially from my good friend tetrapod!

sorry. i log on in the mornings, and just start at the top of active topics. i really should look at the individual sections sometimes. anyhoo,

there is NO EVIDENCE for creation. even if evolution was disproved (by finding a human femur in Devonian strata and dating it conclusively, for example), creationism would not be right by extension. that is called a non sequitur. it would not logically follow. anything that a creationist says is evidence for creation, is actually almost always nothing more than "replies" to biologists, and "apologies" like the so-called irreducible complexity of biological systems. which is actually not evidence at all, but souped up versions of the Argument from Design, and the Argument from Ignorance. they are not facts, but rather rhetoric.

creationism is NOT a scientific explanation of how we have come to observe such biological diversity. biology, however, IS a scientific explanation for diversity. what tool do biologists use when explaining biological diversity to students? they use the theory of evolution by natural selection. creationism IS a mythological explanation for biological diversity. but it has NO evidence to back it up. it is NOT a scientific theory. at best, it's a hypothesis that does not even begin to explain evidence and data in ANY rational sort of way. also, creationism as a metaphorical mythology, is not falsifiable, therefore not scientific. but if a creationist insists that creationism is scientific, then he must also play by the rules of science. and in that case, "creationism" has been thoroughly disproved by all the papers and books that different scientists have written since Darwin penned his Origin of the Species. not disproved by rhetoric or argument, but by the data and evidence that support explanations for biological diversity.

the real problem with creationism for any religious person, is the existence of god. while the ToE does not touch on the issue at all, nor should it, it does not need a god to make it work. however creationism is pathetically lacking in evidence for a god, and therefore ALSO in EVIDENCE for creation. if your B-I-L cannot prove that god exists, then he cannot prove creationism either. the two are inextricably linked.

this may be considered an appeal to authority, but there are basically no working, professional biologists that do not hold evolution to be obviously true. i beleive the percentage was less than 0.001 percent. so, the people on earth, most qualified to make a call about the evidence for evolution, and whether the theory addresses it well or not, are all in agreement over the basic mechanisms and theory of evolution. there may be disagreements within the community, but they are of a technical nature regarding smaller mechanisms of change, or interpretation. creationists love pointing this out, ignoring the fact that they can't even agree within their camp about what a "kind" is.

the EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION is overwhelming. it straddles several different disciplines, actually. Biology, Genetics, Anthropology, Paleontology, Embryology, Morphology, Zoology, Bio geography. each discipline has it's own peer review process, and publishes papers that support ToE's explanation of data. and it always supports ToE because the ToE has the power of predictability. creationism does not have this.

a couple of my personal and favorite debate points:

convergence in evolution: ants and termites. placental anteaters in the old world ( africa ), marsupial and monotreme anteaters in Australia and south america . the common genetic ancestor they shared was nothing like what they independently became after the break up of Gondwana . this is evidence for convergent evolution. an explanation from wikipedia :

In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution describes the process whereby organisms not closely related independently acquire similar characteristics while evolving in separate and sometimes varying ecosystems.
An example of convergent evolution is the similar nature of the wings of insects, birds, and bats. All three serve the same function and are similar in structure, but each evolved independently. Eyes also evolved independently in various animals.
Convergent evolution is a different phenomenon than evolutionary relay and parallel evolution. Similar to convergent evolution, evolutionary relay describes how independent species acquire similar characteristics through their evolution in similar ecosystems, but not at the same time (dorsal fins of extinct ichthyosaurs and sharks). Parallel evolution occurs when two independent species evolve together at the same time in the same ecospace and acquire similar characteristics (extinct browsing-horses and extinct paleotheres).
Structures that are the result of convergent evolution are called analogous structures or homoplasies; they should be contrasted with homologous structures which have a common origin.
Other examples include the smelling organs of the terrestrial coconut crab which are similar to those of insects, and the aerial rootlets found in English ivy (Hedera helix) and wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei) (and other vines); these rootlets are not derived from a common ancestor, but have the same function of clinging to whatever support was available.

DNA junk and duplication in evolution: we use something like 1% of our genome in reproduction and development. the rest is largely junk from our evolutionary past. other organisms or viruses hitched a ride in our genome, because we have more chromosomal storage space. interestingly, we share about 99% of our genome with chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative. we share that much with them, junk and all. so our common ancestor passed all her junk onto both of our species. - why would a creator copy most of the genome from a chimp to a human, or vise versa , and all the junk with it? if there is a creator, then why junk in the first place? if there is a creator, then why the same genomes with slight variation? if he is as creative as creationists say, then why not a different genome for each species? this points to either:

no creator at all since DNA is a computer program and not a blueprint.
or a very lazy creator that is actually just a programmer who executed his program of genetic algorithms, and let all the crap unfold without tinkering with any of it, ergo all the junk in our (and chimps) genome.

Quotes has already given the link for talkorigins .org. there are many sources to peer reviewed writing that explain the hard evidence, listed on this site. this site deals with the evidence for evolution. but one page in particular really does a great job of this. its:

http:// talkorigins .org/faqs/comdesc/

go through that page, and pull out the sources and content that you want. the author, Dr. D. Theobald has granted permission for this type of thing.

another really cool section from talk origins is this one:

http:// talkorigins .org/indexcc/index.html

it most likely covers your B-I-L's claims about Darwin, or some version of them, and also provides sources.

and you can also tailor some of the stumper questions for him as well. just substitute "christian" for " muslim " and "Bible" for "Koran". from http:// talkorigins .org/faqs/fabnaq.html :

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?
1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?
1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?
1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?
1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

as you can see, talkorigins.org is a treasure trove.

of course, you are in for a battle. like christian creationists, muslim creationists are often just as stiff necked. but always remember that to debate a creationist is to not always debate what you think you are debating. you may not be trying, in the slightest, to even touch on the existence of god, but rather just evolutionary biology. but to the creationist, you are often debating the existence of god, by proving evolution. so just be prepared to jump back and forth between biology, theology, history and philosophy.

anyways, talkorigins isn't the only evidence for evolution site out there. wikipedia is awesome too. but talk origins should take care of your B-I-L.

i hope this helps,

let me know if i can explain anything better, or more clearly.

good luck.

TS

gringojj

Damn tet I wish I had your brain so I could explain it better to him but I will do my best Thanks for coming through!

How fortunate we are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tetrapod.sapien

you might also want to spend some time on gradual change via cumulative selection in natural selection. the fact that there is no such thing, technically, as a transitional form, since there is no end goal of evolution. anything that was alive 2 million years ago, was just what it was. the furthest evolved up to that point. and we are transitional forms compared to whatever we will be in the future. each organism, is only a single mutation away from it's neighbor in genetic space. richard dawkins' treatment of gradualism and genetic space in The Blind Watchmaker is brilliant, of course. when you consider that no child is a clone of her parents, but has mutated slightly from them, you start to visualize the long gradual changes in evolutionary history. those whose mutations help them survive to reproductive age in a certain environment, are the ones who survive and pass those genetic changes onward.
also, if your B-I-L doesn't know much about the scientific method, you may want to spend some time on that with him as well.

tetrapod.sapien

How fortunate we are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

resplendent apes! edit: oh, and you don't have to explain it all to him in a single go. if he senses that you are willing to listen to his arguments, and he is a collegial sort of guy, then he will be willing to listen to your arguments too. this could go on for months. my sister and i, and my wife and i, have established this sort of understanding, and have been going back and forth about evolution for months now.

tetrapod.sapien

sorry for all the posts, but i keep thinking of stuff. if you BIL respects national geographic, then you may want to get him the november 2004 issue. i know this issue was big for me in questioning the org. they are so publicly respected that it's worth a shot with him:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html

Carmel

I've been called a "mutant" before tet, but never took it seriously! Actually, rather than "mutating" slightly from my petigree, I choose to think I'm the product of naturally occuring recombinant DNA.

Last point, again, evolution is being equated with or juxtaposed to the "creation" of life. Natural Selection and the resulting variety of species is not an explanation for the "origin of life", rather an explanation for the forces at play that result in diversity and rewards for "fitness".

caveman

Tetrapod Help Me!!!!!!

Share this