Lecture and Forum on "Why I abandoned evolution"

[Zablorg]

He then brought up what seemed to be his most important point - the fossil record. He claimed that according to evolution, mice evolved into bats, so we should find fossils of transition species from mice to bats. Since we haven't, he claimed, that means it didn't happen. He quoted some scientist who said that the fossil record is complete, which in his mind undoubtedly proved that the fossil record was complete. "Out of the millions of fossils found, you'd think at least some of them would've been a transitional species between mice and bats." He then claimed that hundreds more examples were in his book, which he had been pushing throughout the evening.

I'm curious, does it actually appear that bats evolved from mice? Or even some kind of rodent? I could definitely see it happening, but it's really the base of the whole argument and I find myself surprised even today at the falsehoods these people manage to sidle in. To simply assume that it's true because they look similar would be giving too much credit.

[Surlethe]

I did a quick Talkorigins check; apparently, the evolution of bats is not well-understood. Obviously, bats didn't descend from modern mice, but I believe it's known that they descended from rodent-like ancestors.

[Venator]

I'm mortified that schools give crazy bats like that free reign when speaking; at least a moderator to stop him from ignoring or quashing valid counterpoints in Q&A.

It seems there is no such award, or it's so insignificant that it isn't mentioned at all on any academic website. Funnily enough, googling the name turns up talkorigins and various bookstores selling the guy's book.

Not only that - the only google results for that award are those referring to him winning it... further reinforcing the idea that it's just something he made up.

[Darth Wong]

He then brought up what seemed to be his most important point - the fossil record. He claimed that according to evolution, mice evolved into bats, so we should find fossils of transition species from mice to bats. Since we haven't, he claimed, that means it didn't happen.

Right, and since we haven't found the murder weapon, OJ Simpson could not possibly have murdered Nicole

Seems like classic "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" logic. Creating an impossible strict burden of proof for one side, and none for the other.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I did a quick Talkorigins check; apparently, the evolution of bats is not well-understood. Obviously, bats didn't descend from modern mice, but I believe it's known that they descended from rodent-like ancestors.

Bats have the poorest known fossil record of all vertebrates, AFAIK.

[RedImperator]

I'm curious, does it actually appear that bats evolved from mice? Or even some kind of rodent? I could definitely see it happening, but it's really the base of the whole argument and I find myself surprised even today at the falsehoods these people manage to sidle in. To simply assume that it's true because they look similar would be giving too much credit.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, bats are more closely related to whales than they are to true rodents.

[Darth Wong]

What idiots like this don't understand is that even if evolutionary scientists don't understand something, it doesn't mean evolution doesn't work. It's almost pointless to get into a debate with them over this specific species or that one, because they are bound to eventually hit on one you have no answer for. It's better to go after the flawed logic underlying that argument, where evolution requires omniscience to be valid while religion doesn't have to explain anything.

[Kodiak]

What idiots like this don't understand is that even if evolutionary scientists don't understand something, it doesn't mean evolution doesn't work. It's almost pointless to get into a debate with them over this specific species or that one, because they are bound to eventually hit on one you have no answer for. It's better to go after the flawed logic underlying that argument, where evolution requires omniscience to be valid while religion doesn't have to explain anything.

Now this is the whole "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing? I keep running into creationists who throw in the whole "where's the fossils" argument, but I don't know quite how to respond other than "they haven't found 'em yet".

[Darth Wong]

What idiots like this don't understand is that even if evolutionary scientists don't understand something, it doesn't mean evolution doesn't work. It's almost pointless to get into a debate with them over this specific species or that one, because they are bound to eventually hit on one you have no answer for. It's better to go after the flawed logic underlying that argument, where evolution requires omniscience to be valid while religion doesn't have to explain anything.

Now this is the whole "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing? I keep running into creationists who throw in the whole "where's the fossils" argument, but I don't know quite how to respond other than "they haven't found 'em yet".

No, this is different from "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": a highly overused phrase which is not precise enough to be meaningful.

The best way to explain the scientific method to laypeople is the phrase "proof of concept".

When scientists confirm a theory which is applicable to past events, they are testing for proof of concept. They are not conducting a criminal investigation to uncover the specifics behind any particular action that took place in the past; they are only attempting to explain how it could have been done. And if there's only one explanation that works, then that is probably how it was done.

This is radically different from the religious approach, which is to tell a story, laid out as a sequence of events with no attempt to address the issue of physical plausibility. People like stories, and they think the scientific approach has "holes" in it because it does not tell a complete story. But science is not about telling stories; it is about establishing mechanisms, and doing "proof of concept" tests to confirm that those mechanisms work. If those mechanisms help to confirm or deny the plausibility of one story over another, that's great. But the core of the whole process is the "proof of concept" test.

In the case of fossils, they establish "proof of concept" for evolution in the sense that they confirm some of its predictions. The fact that the record is not complete does not cause a problem, because that doesn't refute the fact that the "proof of concept" test was successful. In order to refute the proof of concept which has already been established, you need to show that one of the predictions is actually wrong, not just unconfirmed.

[Kodiak]

In the case of fossils, they establish "proof of concept" for evolution in the sense that they confirm some of its predictions. The fact that the record is not complete does not cause a problem, because that doesn't refute the fact that the "proof of concept" test was successful. In order to refute the proof of concept which has already been established, you need to show that one of the predictions is actually wrong, not just unconfirmed.

So then the best response would be to say "look, every fossil that has been found to date fits this mechanism of evolution and therefore it is reasonable to assume that all future fossils will fit the model and if they don't then the mechanism can be refined to reflect new understanding" ? I get into this back-and-forth a lot since I regularly interact with a lot of "fundies" in the area I live, and I'm trying to develop a concise way of explaining that evolution doesn't have holes in it.

[Darth Wong]

Ask them to explain precisely what it means for a scientific theory to "have holes in it". If they say "it can't explain <insert phenomenon here>", ask them first to explain why they think omniscience is a prerequisite for a scientific theory, and ask them second to explain how they know that it can't explain this. Have they studied it in enough depth to know what it can or can't explain? Because what they really mean is "my personal understanding of evolution cannot explain this", which doesn't mean a heck of a lot if they are not experts in it and have never bothered consulting one.

None of them can disprove the mechanism; they can only attack the completeness of the story it tells, and storytelling is a mere side-effect of science. It is not like religion, where storytelling forms its foundation and mechanisms are irrelevant. Do they understand that the correct method of attacking a scientific theory is to attack the mechanism?

Consider the example of the Egyptian pyramids. We have many theories as to how they could have built them. Can we be absolutely certain? Do we have a complete set of evidence to prove that? No, but we have "proof of concept" that they could have done it a certain way. Why isn't that good enough?

[Darth Onasi]

You know the old saying, "Never argue with an idiot. He'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."
That's what dolts like this do. They don't analyse and try to rebuke evolution scientifically because they just can't.

[Surlethe]

Here's another way of looking at how a scientific hypothesis is confirmed. It makes certain predictions about how observations ought to be configured. Just because you don't have all the observations doesn't mean that the hypothesis has holes in it. On the contrary, you can't judge a hypothesis by the evidence you don't have (unless the hypothesis says there should be evidence where there isn't), you judge it by the evidence you do have. If all of the evidence fits the pattern that the hypothesis says should be there, then the hypothesis is considered correct.

[Darth Yoshi]

An analogy I'm fond is the Caesar analogy. That a man named Julius Caesar existed is generally accepted, but no one has ever actually seen him, because he's dead. All we have is documentation that said Caesar existed, so we assume that we did. Does the fact that we don't know when he first got laid, for instance, mean that Caesar never existed? Of course not. Likewise, the evidence points to evolutionary processes, so that's the accepted explanation. Just because we don't know something specific doesn't invalidate the whole.

[Darth Holbytlan]

When scientists confirm a theory which is applicable to past events, they are testing for proof of concept. They are not conducting a criminal investigation to uncover the specifics behind any particular action that took place in the past; they are only attempting to explain how it could have been done. And if there's only one explanation that works, then that is probably how it was done.

To extend the metaphor, rejecting a scientific theory because it hasn't provided some particular answer is like rejecting criminology because a case remains unsolved. Arguing for creationism because we don't know how bats evolved is silly. Might as well argue we should use psychics to solve crimes because we don't know the identity of Jack the Ripper.

[Kanastrous]

An analogy I'm fond is the Caesar analogy. That a man named Julius Caesar existed is generally accepted, but no one has ever actually seen him, because he's dead. All we have is documentation that said Caesar existed, so we assume that we did. Does the fact that we don't know when he first got laid, for instance, mean that Caesar never existed? Of course not.

I've been offered basically the same argument in favor of the accuracy of the Gospels: the Believer says You believe that Julius Caesar was a real person, right? There is more historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus than of Caesar, so therefore it makes sense to believe that Jesus' existence and ministry are at least equally plausible.

I don't know how he arrives at the premise that Jesus is more extensively documented as a historical figure; I think he adds up the word count of every document pre-1st-Council-of-Nicea or something.

[Darth Yoshi]

Seriously? Wow. Aren't ancient Christian texts pretty much the only proof that Christ ever existed? I remember reading that Jeshua (sp? - the Aramaic form of his name, anyway) was a fairly common name at the time, so the fact that some dude got crucified means diddly squat, especially since there isn't any corroboration of his resurrection.

[Darth Wong]

An analogy I'm fond is the Caesar analogy. That a man named Julius Caesar existed is generally accepted, but no one has ever actually seen him, because he's dead. All we have is documentation that said Caesar existed, so we assume that we did. Does the fact that we don't know when he first got laid, for instance, mean that Caesar never existed? Of course not.

I've been offered basically the same argument in favor of the accuracy of the Gospels: the Believer says You believe that Julius Caesar was a real person, right? There is more historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus than of Caesar, so therefore it makes sense to believe that Jesus' existence and ministry are at least equally plausible.

I don't know how he arrives at the premise that Jesus is more extensively documented as a historical figure; I think he adds up the word count of every document pre-1st-Council-of-Nicea or something.

Want to hear something funny? This is an (almost, to the limits of my recollection) verbatim quote of a fundie preacher I once saw on TV:

"They want proof that Jesus performed miracles. Well, there were thousands of people who saw him turn water into wine. How many witnesses do you need?"

Of course, neither he or his swooning congregation could see the obvious logical disconnect. In reality, Julius Caesar is vastly more documented than Jesus, and from his enemies, not just his friends. Jesus is contemporaneously documented only by his own followers: a paper trail which is worth pretty much nothing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Of course, neither he or his swooning congregation could see the obvious logical disconnect. In reality, Julius Caesar is vastly more documented than Jesus, and from his enemies, not just his friends. Jesus is contemporaneously documented only by his own followers: a paper trail which is worth pretty much nothing.

Julius Caesar is indeed well documented. However, most historians do not agree that the early Christian/Jesus sect records are "worth pretty much nothing". Their accuracy is of course doubtful, but by using critical analysis it is still possible to extract the likely historical events behind the stories about Jesus. In doing so we must also try abandon the negative feelings many non-believers have about the Christian scriptures and try to analyze the texts like any other similar documents from Antiquity. This of course leads to rejection of the miracle stories, but many claims about Jesus are still likely truthful. A good example would be his origin as a resident of Nazareth. Nazareth was not important religiously, and Jesus being from Nazareth was rather inconvenient if he was supposed be the Messiah prophesized by the Hebrew Bible. The logical conclusion from that is that the stories about his childhood and Bethlehem as his place of birth are likely later invention to make him more compatible with the Messiah prophesies.

In comparison, historians also do not believe uncritically the scandalous stories written about many Roman emperors by later Roman historians, but they still do not doubt the existence of those those emperors nor do they automatically reject everything written about them by non-contemporary historians.

[ray245]

Seriously? Wow. Aren't ancient Christian texts pretty much the only proof that Christ ever existed? I remember reading that Jeshua (sp? - the Aramaic form of his name, anyway) was a fairly common name at the time, so the fact that some dude got crucified means diddly squat, especially since there isn't any corroboration of his resurrection.

Josephus did mention about Jesus being a religious leader, but he basically dismissed Jesus as just one of the many cult leaders in the early first century CE.

So while a historical Jesus as a normal person may exist as a religious leader, there is no definte proof saying that his miracles being performed are all real and verified.

I would think that if a person really made such a dramatic miracle that makes him so outstanding as opposed to all the other Jewish religious and cult leader, the Roman emperor might have noticed Jesus, as well as getting people to verify that rumors.

[JCady]

The alternative is to admit that religion and science is based on different paradigms. They don't want to do that for very pragmatic reasons: if two creeds can't compete on a level playing field, you have to ask which one of them is most suited to occupy the field.

Treating science as a rival religion is a very easy leap to make given that in many ways it is functionally equivalent to a religion; it fills many of the same sociological niches, and to a non-scientist laboratory procedures can seem just as arcane as ritual chanting to Baal.

[Darth Wong]

The alternative is to admit that religion and science is based on different paradigms. They don't want to do that for very pragmatic reasons: if two creeds can't compete on a level playing field, you have to ask which one of them is most suited to occupy the field.

Treating science as a rival religion is a very easy leap to make given that in many ways it is functionally equivalent to a religion; it fills many of the same sociological niches, and to a non-scientist laboratory procedures can seem just as arcane as ritual chanting to Baal.

Mind you, science doesn't preach a moral code, although many religious people think it does. They tend to think that because science does occasionally debunk some of the bullshit cause/effect claims made in support of religious moral codes.

[Thanas]

Seriously? Wow. Aren't ancient Christian texts pretty much the only proof that Christ ever existed? I remember reading that Jeshua (sp? - the Aramaic form of his name, anyway) was a fairly common name at the time, so the fact that some dude got crucified means diddly squat, especially since there isn't any corroboration of his resurrection.

Josephus did mention about Jesus being a religious leader, but he basically dismissed Jesus as just one of the many cult leaders in the early first century CE.

So while a historical Jesus as a normal person may exist as a religious leader, there is no definte proof saying that his miracles being performed are all real and verified.

I would think that if a person really made such a dramatic miracle that makes him so outstanding as opposed to all the other Jewish religious and cult leader, the Roman emperor might have noticed Jesus, as well as getting people to verify that rumors.

Before I have to type out page after page about Tacitus again, I'll just refer you to the discussion following this post.

[kinnison]

One of the central planks of the structure that is creationism is the notion that speciation has never been observed. Of course, one can argue that speciation is usually a long and gradual process and one is unlikely to see it happening for that reason. However, there is at least one example of fairly swift speciation in historical times, and recent historical at that. This example is the London Underground mosquito, evolved from a common aboveground species within "the last few decades".

This new species shows all the hallmarks of being different from its progenitor species. Different behaviour, extreme difficulty in breeding them with the originals and producing sterile offspring, genetically distinct.

Now ask a creationist how this species arose, considering that the environment to which it's adapted has only existed for just over a century? Perhaps God decided that users of the Tube needed to be punished and so made a new creation - within the last century - with which to do it.