The standard creationist line seems to be “why haven’t we seen evolution take place?” which is relatively easy to refute with examples of observed evolution. Yesterday, though, this was posed to me: “Sure, we see evolution taking place now, but how does that prove that we are the result of evolution?” When I pointed to fossil record, I was told something along the lines of “just because it looks like evidence doesn’t mean that it is.”
Since the people I was talking to were (I think/hope) more playing devil’s advocate (heh) than defending their actual beliefs, I don’t feel quite like I’m beating my head against a wall.
Their argument certainly feels fallacious, but I can’t put my finger quite on how to refute it. Any thoughts?
I’m more interested in a way around “just because we see evolution now doesn’t mean we’re a product of it,” which is a bit of a deviation from the standard arguments I see.
It´s not easy to change thoughts with rational arguments when the previous thoughts weren´t achived by rational means.
If everything else fails, take a slab of sedimentary rock with an Archeopteryx fossil on it, slam the Creationist upside the head with it; I don´t know if that will convince him/her. But it would be very reliving.
They are asking a legitimate question. That question is, essentially, that even the proven plausibility of evolution being able to explain the diversity of life (though I doubt your claimaint really accepts that), how do we know that it is what happened in THIS case.
The best answer is simply that it’s only case that can be modeled out of the physical evidence we have. Denying things like fossil evidence is all well and good, but the fact is, if you throw it all out, you essentially throw out the possibility of ANY sort of case based on historical grounds, which leaves the point moot. It’s no different than summarily throwing out all primary texts because someone claims that they could have been created by a conspiracies powerful new printing press to fake it.
If he can raise a legitimate with the line of reasoning behind fossil evidence, that’s an entirely different issue. But simply tossing it all out at once without any sort of good explaination as why is just a delaying tactic.
Whatever evolution we can observe now has nothing to do with our ability to prove that humans are the product of evolution. The proofs of human evolution are varied and substantial but none of them are dependant on real time observations.
IOW, they are right. Just because we see evolution now doesn’t necessarily prove it always existed…BUT…that is not what we hang our conclusions on. We can prove it quite easily without ever observing it.
The argument that “just because something looks like evidence doesn’t mean that it is” is completely fallacious. Science does not base conclusions on “looks” but on predictability. Evolution predicts that the fossil record will look a certain way. The geological stratification of the fossil record has always been found precisely as evolutionary theory would predict.
The fossil record is not the only “proof” of evolution, though, it’s just one of many elements which support the whole theory.
Talkorigins might be kind of a cliched link around here but it provides all the arguments that you need. If your friends want to dispute that observed evolution proves anything then just remind them that evolutionary theory does not require direct observation to be proven anyway.
Just make them notice that we have DNA as a common link with those creatures that are evolving, AFAICR there is very little sense that even their “junk” DNA is similar to us, so the path of evolution was recorded there, And lo: we humans are still evolving:
So, evolution has been noticed as a factor in our search for controlling human disease. I think it is time say to any Creationist out there, that if their efforts were successful in stamping out evolution; medicine, and all the people affected by some diseases, will be too.
Just make them notice that we have DNA as a common link with those creatures that are evolving; AFAICR there is very little sense that even their “junk” DNA is similar to us, if evolution was false, this would not be the case…
Eh. I’m pretty sure that most Creationists would point out that if God designed all creatures, it would make sense for him to use common building blocks for those creatures. In other words, the common use of DNA doesn’t prove anything, one way or another.
As far as “junk DNA” goes, I’d be careful about using that argument. I remember reading some article about how so-called “junk” DNA turned out to serve a useful purpose. (I couldn’t find the article in question, but a Google search did turn up this related text.
Standard answer, “Nothing is proved per se in the field of science. Something proved means it cannot be refuted, but that is not how science works.”
That’s just solipsism. He was just trying to reject the fossil record without coming straight out.
Ask him on what basis does he not accept the fossil record, which is virtually accepted by everybody, including Creationists. At which point, he will have to deny that he does not accept the fossil record, or he will have to come up with some lame reason that you should be able to refute easily.
That is why I put the “junk” in quotes JThunder. But, you are missing the point: in this context, I see DNA as the programming code; and as my biology link showed: evolution is in there.
That’s the sort of ad hoc that can “explain” away anything. It rules out the very possibility of falisfication if anything can be explained away as a quirk of character or motive.
And why would it make sense anyway? Why would an all powerful creator need to resort to crude artifice and minor modification when the full powers of imagination and creation are at his command? Why shoehorn together “building blocks” at all when you have no need of such aids and training wheels?
Perhaps, but that’s only a problem for those who claim that the commonality of DNA must argue for a common evolutionary origin. I’m only pointing out that this doesn’t necessarily follow.
Moreover, the situation isn’t as simplistic as you claim. Any good engineer or programmer understands the value of re-using componnets. It makes perfect sense for a designer to use a reusable and versatile component such as DNA.
This isn’t ad hoc reasoning. It’s basic engineering design.
But if it’s not truly junk DNA, then its commonality does not constitute a valid argument against design. It could just as easily be a deliberate design feature.
Note that I’m not arguing for or against either evolution or design. I’m just pointing out that the stated conclusion does not follow from the aforementioned premise. The commonality of DNA could be evidence of common ancestry, or it could be evidence of deliberate engineering design. That’s why I wouldn’t recommend using this as an argument against creationism, as this approach is sure to fall on its face.
While the complexity is impressive, the making of it is a mess.
“It is the worst kind of spaghetti code you could imagine”
“It is the kind of code you get by NOT planning in advance”
I like the part were they talk about genes: Imagine an organization were members do many different tasks: one person sometimes processing mail, cooking French fries or go to a board meeting.
“Nature would never get good grades designing computer programs.”
“DNA is so hard to understand because a bad programmer made it.”
However, as the evolution of Microsoft DOS>WINDOS>WINDOWS>XP shows, just doing the job good enough, can get you far.
Life today is the result of features added, removed, re-added, improvised (Panda’s thumb), etc .
The machinery is effective because organisms had millions of years to duke it out with each other, and the survivors were the ones that had the best features, we are left with lots of baggage; but also a capacity for lots of improvement.
If you think we were intelligently designed it is because we are stuck in this time, millions of years from now our descendants (both bio and mechanical) will wonder what we were smoking thinking we were specially designed, or the final ones.
Just IMHO, I find that site to be utterly worthless to anybody without a degree in the sciences. I have occasionally been encouraged to go there, and have never been able to make heads nor tails of the arguments.
For this reason, I’ve found it more useful to attack creationism on logical philosophical grounds than to defend evolution on scientific ones. After all, creationism is so highly implausible that even were evolution utterly false we couldn’t simply fall back on creationism. The fact that life on earth looks absolutely nothing like it would look had it been designed by a perfect creator is enough to show me that. As I’ve always figured, if life on earth was designed then he/she/it/they were clearly terrible designers.
