# Philosophical evidence for evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 20, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195 "2011-06-20T20:04:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/61 "2011-06-22T13:19:27Z")
I agree that ring species are a key point in establishing an empirical basis for evolution – that’s why I brought them up in my first post in this thread. But the sharp divide between two species whose intermediates no longer exist is conceptually different from the sharp divide between two categories whose membership is a true either/or proposition, i.e. where there can be no intermediate. Evolution and evolutionary reasoning is powerful, but it’s got its limits, and I think it’s important to be aware of them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/62 "2011-06-22T13:27:19Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I agree that ring species are a key point in establishing an empirical basis for evolution – that’s why I brought them up in my first post in this thread. > > But the sharp divide between two species whose intermediates no longer exist is conceptually different from the sharp divide between two categories whose membership is a true either/or proposition, i.e. where there can be no intermediate. Because the two species are separated by, say, five missing intermediates instead of one? Or because the two share a common ancestor back through different intermediates? I don’t see the conceptual stumbling block. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/63 "2011-06-22T13:34:01Z")
I don’t see this as a philosophical argument for evolution, but it is a succinct bumper-sticker explanation of it: “Some get to fuck more.” ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/64 "2011-06-22T13:50:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t wish to junior-mod, but this potentially interesting debate deserves its own thread. Are you up for a debate on this subject, or was the above a drive-by post? I seriously doubt the poster will be back, much less be willing to discuss whether or not common descent is fact and that the theory of evolution explains this fact… ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/65 "2011-06-22T14:12:28Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Because the two species are separated by, say, five missing intermediates instead of one? Or because the two share a common ancestor back through different intermediates? I don’t see the conceptual stumbling block. No, I don’t think between any species there ever is what I would call a sharp divide, but in arguments as the ones I alluded to (first cause, prime mover etc.), or in dichotomies like existence/nonexistence, there may be. ---
**Author:** ![Erg0Sum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4da419/32.png) [@Erg0Sum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erg0Sum)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/66 "2011-06-22T14:27:53Z")
I’m not sure about the philosophical argument for evolution, although I have no doubt that one could be made. However I recently found this cartoon which covers evolution in a very thorough and accessible manner. > **[Evolution](http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html)** > > Here then is the beta version of my strip about evolution. This is a chapter of the book Science Stories which will be out from Myriad Editi... ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/67 "2011-06-22T15:07:17Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > You know, this is not entirely true. I think specifically of a pair of married friends of mine, both of whom were creationists when we met (about 10 years back) and who are now … well, _believers_ is the wrong word – both of whom know accept the theory of evolution as the best extant explanation for the diversity of species and further hold that it would be perverse to deny that without an enormous and improbable input of new information. They weren’t creationists then. They were just a pair of ignorant people, whose ignorance was successfully fought. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/68 "2011-06-22T15:42:33Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > They weren’t creationists then. They were just a pair of ignorant people, whose ignorance was successfully fought. That sounds like a No True Scotsman argument to me. Are you saying it’s impossible for ‘true’ creationists to change their mind? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/69 "2011-06-22T16:14:51Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I don’t see this as a philosophical argument for evolution, but it is a succinct bumper-sticker explanation of it: > > “Some get to fuck more.” Actually that should be “Some get knocked up more.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/70 "2011-06-22T16:19:35Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > That depends on what one understands the meaning of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection to be. Not all Christians are literalists. Of course, non-literalist Christians – at least the ones I know – don’t have a problem with the the theory of evolution. Literalism isn’t the issue here. If we are inherently sinful, and so require Jesus to redeem us from our sins, there are two possibilities. First, God made us sinful (possibly through evolution) which means we are not really responsible, and thus Jesus is just redeeming us from something he in his God role did to us. Second, a common ancestor more or less freely chose to sin. Neglecting the innocence issue, this implies that there were some primitive Adam and Eve who are the ancestors of us all. But the study of human evolution shows that no such pair exists. I believe the Catholics directly address this, but not very believably. This problem has nothing to do with the age of the Earth or even the age of man, or even our descent from other forms. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/71 "2011-06-22T17:02:01Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > That sounds like a No True Scotsman argument to me. > > Are you saying it’s impossible for ‘true’ creationists to change their mind? Yes, sort of. My definition of creationist goes back to my original post, people who believe in magic. I don’t make the simple equivalance between the belief in God and the belief in magic though. I’m speaking of the mindset that allows some to deny any facts that are inconvenient to a belief. These people cannot reason because anything that contradicts their beliefs doesn’t count for them. If they believe 1+1=3, then it does, and any demonstration that they are wrong is just dismissed as something based in an incorrect theological belief. After all, they are pious people who work for the betterment of all through the spirit of God, therefore they cannot be wrong, and you cannot be right because your motives are wrong. Belief in creation by the ignorant does not make one a creationist anymore than belief in evolution by the ignorant makes them evolutionists. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/72 "2011-06-22T20:45:03Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I don’t see this as a philosophical argument for evolution, but it is a succinct bumper-sticker explanation of it: > > “Some get to fuck more.” Better I think is “Evolution is an existentialist game wherein the losers become extinct, and the winners get to keep playing.” ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/73 "2011-06-22T20:53:42Z")
> [@Phenomenal](#): > > There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. [That is something less than correct.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) It would be more accurate to say that there is so much freaking evidence for evolution that if it were all printed out in 12-point Times New Roman font on 8.5x11 inch paper, double spaced and single sided, the average bodybuilder would put his back out trying to lift it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/74 "2011-06-22T20:55:43Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > That is something less than correct. Wild exaggeration serves no purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/75 "2011-06-22T20:57:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Literalism isn’t the issue here. If we are inherently sinful, and so require Jesus to redeem us from our sins, there are two possibilities. First, God made us sinful (possibly through evolution) which means we are not really responsible, and thus Jesus is just redeeming us from something he in his God role did to us. Second, a common ancestor more or less freely chose to sin. Neglecting the innocence issue, this implies that there were some primitive Adam and Eve who are the ancestors of us all. But the study of human evolution shows that no such pair exists. I believe the Catholics directly address this, but not very believably. This problem has nothing to do with the age of the Earth or even the age of man, or even our descent from other forms. Not all Xtians believe that we are inherently sinful in the way you’re suggesting. I know a Congregational minister who’d say that the point of Christ’s sacrifice was to free us of the illusion that we are so wretched that God cannot love us. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/76 "2011-06-22T21:16:45Z")
> [@Phenomenal](#): > > There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. Well, that settles it! Why didn’t you tell us this earlier? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/77 "2011-06-22T21:27:44Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I have a problem with this construction. It implies (at least to me) that you’re saying that evolution is teleological – that there is an ultimate aim in store. No it doesn’t. It’s observational in nature. It doesn’t say that the aim of struggle is to make species better, just that that is the observed outcome. > [@](#): > > It also implies that evolution is progressive – that ancestor species were lesser versions of current species, selected against by a process of directed change, akin to human engineering. > > Did you mean to imply that? Not at all. “Better” in this case should be rendered “better _adapted_” - to its current environment - and that can, and does, change, rendering a previously well-adapted species less well-adapted. I’m aware evolution isn’t a lift, but a whole Snakes and Ladders game. But if you’re doing philosophy Nietzsche-style, it’s all about the soundbites, man. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/78 "2011-06-22T22:14:55Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Yes, sort of. My definition of creationist goes back to my original post, people who believe in magic. I don’t make the simple equivalance between the belief in God and the belief in magic though. I’m speaking of the mindset that allows some to deny any facts that are inconvenient to a belief. These people cannot reason because anything that contradicts their beliefs doesn’t count for them. If they believe 1+1=3, then it does, and any demonstration that they are wrong is just dismissed as something based in an incorrect theological belief. After all, they are pious people who work for the betterment of all through the spirit of God, therefore they cannot be wrong, and you cannot be right because your motives are wrong. > > Belief in creation by the ignorant does not make one a creationist anymore than belief in evolution by the ignorant makes them evolutionists. Well, it seems like you’ve just redefined the term ‘creationist’ to serve your own specific purpose, whatever that is - nothing wrong with that, but your definition isn’t the common one, so you’ll find yourself constantly talking at cross-purposes with people, as indeed has happened in this thread. For the record, I was once quite a committed creationist. I changed my mind through exposure to evidence and patiently-reasoned argument. There was a time that no argument would have worked on me - and I would indeed have dismissed it without hearing it, but people change. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/79 "2011-06-22T23:52:09Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Well, it seems like you’ve just redefined the term ‘creationist’ to serve your own specific purpose, whatever that is - nothing wrong with that, but your definition isn’t the common one, so you’ll find yourself constantly talking at cross-purposes with people, as indeed has happened in this thread. > > For the record, I was once quite a committed creationist. I changed my mind through exposure to evidence and patiently-reasoned argument. There was a time that no argument would have worked on me - and I would indeed have dismissed it without hearing it, but people change. I may have carried my definition a little too far, but I think ‘creationist’ would refer to someone who has a broader philosophy than just believing in the creation story. I believed it myself as a small child, but that I don’t think that made me a ‘creationist’, just ignorance. Anyway, I’m happy to hear you are a ‘recovered creationist’. Also, simple creationism does bother me, I claim to be a Last Thursdayist, even though it is, or because it is, a meaningless concept. I have problems with those who claim that there is a thing called Creation Science, or attack the motives and product of those who study actual science. I can’t stand that Last Wednesdayist sect though. Those people are the worst. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195/80 "2011-06-23T00:14:15Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I may have carried my definition a little too far, but I think ‘creationist’ would refer to someone who has a broader philosophy than just believing in the creation story. I believed it myself as a small child, but that I don’t think that made me a ‘creationist’, just ignorance. Perhaps we can meet in the middle. I take your point that someone such as a child, accepting creationism because it’s all they know, isn’t really a creationist in the sense commonly used - certainly the term implies some sort of active and wilful participation - I just think it’s still a broad enough category of folks to include some people who will listen to reason, but are just labouring (perhaps quite fervently) under a wrong impression about the world. (Of course, the category also includes folks at the other extreme, who do exactly fit the special definition - and will never be swayed, because they are determined never to be swayed. Interestingly, in my experience, these people seem to float to the top) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-evidence-for-evolution/586195.md?page=5)