• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Dead Animals Don't Evolve"?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
John Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. (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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I like that. It will bring her vituperation down on me, but it might reach the lurkers.
 
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.
 
Prometheus said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
John Jones,

May I suggest you give her this?

Marvin Minsky said:
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.
Click to expand...
See what her reaction is.

~~ Paul
 
John Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ask her which bible passage provides instructions to build the computer she's using to communicate with you.
 
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.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
John Jones,

May I suggest you give her this?


See what her reaction is.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

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. :^)
 
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? 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.
 
Prometheus said:
Ask her which bible passage provides instructions to build the computer she's using to communicate with you.
Click to expand...

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"
 
Simon39759 said:
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.
...
Click to expand...

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!
 
"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.
 
John Jones said:
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.
Click to expand...
But now she'll have to rant against logic. Then you'll know she's lost.

~~ Paul
 
Is talkorigins still maintained? All of the copyrights/updates seem to date back to 2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom