"Dead Animals Don't Evolve"?

[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 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.