What "Pro-Evolution" Argument is most persuasive t

[Kitsune]

What I am curious about is what people here consider to be the most persuasive argument in support of evolution? Ones which you try to use against creationist and you just cannot believe that they cannot see it.

Personally, my biggest one is the various jury rigging in organisms and our traces of various older organisms in ourselves. For example the way our nerves seem to follow paths which make no sense if a designer built them.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Microbial adaptation. Of course, they trot out the one trick pony of "That's only microevolution", but you'll never convince those who wilfully want to be blind and ignorant. To anyone with a half open mind and rational one at that, this should be all that is needed. If you can explain that even the most massive buildings on Earth started with a single brick, then you can rationalise evolution this way.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that no creationist can name any special organ we have that apes don't. Everything we have is just ape parts, in varying proportions and occasionally with some tweaking. That really puts the hurt on their insistence that the idea of ape-man family relations is completely absurd. And let's face it, that's the evolutionary connection that they're most upset about. Everything else is just bullshit they concoct in the hope of disproving that one key connection.

You can tell it's a devastating argument because they usually ignore it. They don't even have canned rebuttals for it. They just pretend they didn't hear it, and attack other things you said, or try to change the subject to other arguments they have against evolution.

[Kitsune]

With the Human being a primate, I always think of the fact that all mammals beside primates can make vitamin C but primates cannot...a feature of humans as well.

[TheKwas]

I normally just yell something like "FOSSILS! I WIN" and walk away in real life.

[Rye]

The genome I personally find to be the best proof. I mean, these people usually grasp paternity tests from all the daytime TV they watch, would they be shocked to find out that the genetic material inside every cell nucleus in their body doesn't just hold information about their parents but also genes inherited from different, ancient ancestors? We know all this information is inherited naturally, we know that it makes up the vast bulk of the genetic chemistry that makes us who we are. How can we explain the same inherited genes existing in different species without sharing ancestry with them? We can no more deny that than we can deny our own grandparents or deny dna proof on a murder weapon.

Even if we had no fossils, the universal nature of the genome would convince me of evolution.

Additional to that, I would point to the common cold, V/MRSA, nylon-eating flavobacteria and endogenous retroviruses. If you get a virus stuck in your genes and you pass it on to your kids, you've got a marker in that specific area that means you can track all descendants of the person that was first invaded by that virus. When that virus turns up at the exact same place in two different species, inherited in the same way from both of them, I don't see how you can put all that information together and not conclude evolution, historical and present, occurred and continues to occur.

If they don't shut up after hearing about the genes, they're either too stupid to understand or not listening.

[Ender]

The proof is in the pudding. If evolution is wrong, why have we observed it?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Multiple independent lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion. Protein homology, gene homology, structural homology... Molecular clock data corresponding with the fossil record etc.

No one piece of evidence does it. The whole tapestry however...

[Lord of the Abyss]

Multiple independent lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion. Protein homology, gene homology, structural homology... Molecular clock data corresponding with the fossil record etc.

That - the sheer breadth and depth of the evidence for it. And the fact that we've actually seen it, weaseling about "it's just microevolution" aside.

And the fact that the nature of genetics and reproduction nearly demands evolution. Life has inheritable variability and selection pressures; just that alone means it would take quite a bit of sophistication and effort to keep it from happening, not to make it happen. You'd need to modify the creatures involved to be incapable of mutation for starters.

[PainRack]

Errr..... We already seen new species. So... wtf do you mean we haven't observed evolution?
We created new species, we seen new species in the wild and the like. Unless you're assuming men have godlike powers, that's more than sufficient proof.

[Oskuro]

Around here we don't get full-blown creationists, just people that resort to religion/mysticism in certain key subjects.

Anyway, instead of looking for devastating proof to shut them up, I prefer to focus in their fallacious approaches and illogical assumptions, chief among them usually being ad hominem attacks questioning my expertise on the given subject, or, in other words, I try to make them understand the problem with their methods.

It always suprises me to find how many apparently rational people will join the ranks of "science is a conspiracy" when pressured on their pet religious/mystic points.

[General Zod]

I just point out dolphins. What kind of "intelligent" creator makes fish that can drown?

[Darth Wong]

I just point out dolphins. What kind of "intelligent" creator makes fish that can drown?

That's not bad when going after "intelligent design" people. But when going after the "I ain't descended from no ape" people, it's good to point out how few differences there really are. They've heard the one about how much of our DNA is similar many times before and they've got a canned response for it. They don't really have one for you pointing out that we're completely made of tweaked ape parts.

[Lagmonster]

They've heard the one about how much of our DNA is similar many times before and they've got a canned response for it. They don't really have one for you pointing out that we're completely made of tweaked ape parts.

Fundies who've lined the debate trenches for some time do have an all-purpose response to homology arguments: "God said creation was good. Therefore he used the best possible systems for each creature. Obviously some similarities between species are inevitable since you can't do better than the best." When presented any number of responses to their utter lack of knowledge of biology, they segue into the Job response, or shift gears into "but animals don't have souls".

[FSTargetDrone]

Speaking of, here is a piece on evolution that was reprinted in my local paper over the weekend:

Posted on Sun, Aug. 17, 2008

Evolution is the framework

Ignore it, and biology becomes a hodgepodge of disconnected facts.

Olivia Judson is a contributing columnist for the New York Times

When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America's science classrooms.

In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land. It's discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum entirely.

This is a travesty.

It is also dangerous.

Evolution should be taught - indeed, it should be central to beginning biology classes - for at least three reasons.

First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic wastes, cannot be probed and understood. Add evolution - and it becomes possible to make inferences and predictions and (sometimes) to do experiments to test those predictions. All of a sudden patterns emerge everywhere, and apparently trivial details become interesting.

The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the planet is causing other organisms to evolve - and fast. And I'm not talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having is much broader.

For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them. The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which, incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)

Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that, without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales, mature later, bunch together in shoals less, and lose their ability to swim suddenly away from something. Such changes can happen in fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators, the population typically goes extinct.

So if we fail to consider the evolution of other species, we may fail to preserve them. And, perhaps, to preserve ourselves from diseases, pests and food shortages. In short, evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges ahead.

The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book The Republican War on Science, the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence - or indeed, evidence of any kind - has permeated the Bush administration's policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude. A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it sometimes is, and the results are no better.)

But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don't have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.

Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Judson writes "The Wild Side" at nytimes.com/opinion.

[Vendetta]

The most persuasive feature of the theory is the completeness with which the theory explains every feature of life (especially when considered from the point of view of gene selection), and the way that each new discovery of the mechanics of heredity and hereditary information transfer strengthens the theory.

I don't think there is a single one thing you can point at and say "That's the one thing". The most persuasive thing about evolution is everything.

[Kanastrous]

I just point out dolphins. What kind of "intelligent" creator makes fish that can drown?

That's not bad when going after "intelligent design" people. But when going after the "I ain't descended from no ape" people, it's good to point out how few differences there really are. They've heard the one about how much of our DNA is similar many times before and they've got a canned response for it. They don't really have one for you pointing out that we're completely made of tweaked ape parts.

Completely Made of Tweaked Ape Parts would make for a great t-shirt slogan.

[Lagmonster]

I don't think there is a single one thing you can point at and say "That's the one thing". The most persuasive thing about evolution is everything.

To be fair, the fact that something succeeds as a scientific theory is quite a strong recommendation in its favour.

Which reminds me, one of the most maddening arguments I've ever had was with a fundie who also doubles as a philosophy professor at what is not precisely a liberal college. Their denouncing of the science was absurdly complicated and absolutely swaddled in fundie lingo. Imagine, if you will, the kind of person who would argue that subjective opinion is infinitely superior and more reliable than objective verification.

[The Vortex Empire]

If people already think there's no proof for evolution, they're beyond help. If we had no evidence aside from the fossil record, evolution would be obvious and the evidence would be overwhelming. If we had no fossil record, evolution would still be obvious and the evidence would be overwhelming. Creationists often think that the fossil record is the main piece of evidence for evolution, but it's not. It's just a useful bonus.

[Twoyboy]

If people already think there's no proof for evolution, they're beyond help. If we had no evidence aside from the fossil record, evolution would be obvious and the evidence would be overwhelming. If we had no fossil record, evolution would still be obvious and the evidence would be overwhelming. Creationists often think that the fossil record is the main piece of evidence for evolution, but it's not. It's just a useful bonus.

And, in fact, Darwin constructed his theory without its help! The verification through the fossil record and the subsequent verification through genetics make it absolutely amazing that anyone can actually still doubt it. I suppose I underestimate the power of denial.

Not the best, but my favourite argument is to play devil's advocate... and then show what a fucking asshole God is. Like General Zod's dolphin argument, what kind of fuck stick would do that, or make us breath and eat through the same tube.

I vaguely recall a website devoted to this type of thing, however I have lost the link. Can anyone help?

[Darth Ruinus]

Is it this one?

[wautd]

/somewhat relevant to this tread, some more evidence to pile up with the rest

A new species of water lily discovered this year helps prove the theory of evolution, a Manitoba scientist says.

"This species isn't just new to Manitoba, it is a new species of plant that has evolved fairly recently," said Diana Robson, the Manitoba Museum's curator of botany. "Evolution isn't just something that occurred in the past; it's happening right now.""New species evolve when individuals obtain new genetic material that makes them well adapted to new habitats. Mutation is one way that organisms obtain new genetic information, and hybridization is another."

The new species is a hybrid. It arose when two fairly common species of water lily, Leiberg's Water-lily (Nymphaea leibergii) and Fragrant Water-lily (Nymphaea odorata) interbred.

Although plant hybrids form regularly, they are usually sterile and unable to reproduce.

It is the only documented population of this type of new water lily in Manitoba, Robson said, and is a fertile hybrid that is reproducing. So it's considered to be a brand-new species.

It's also quite rare. There are fewer than 500 of them in existence, Robson said, and they should probably be protected.

Robson was alerted to the possibility a new plant species existed in northern Manitoba by John Wiersema, a biologist and water-lily expert with the United States Department of Agriculture. In an old collection, Wiersema found documented a strange specimen of water lily that was collected in Manitoba 60 years ago.

Intrigued by its unusual characteristics, Wiersema and another colleague visited the Minago River about 100 kilometres north of Lake Winnipeg in 1996 and 2000 to find the plant, with no luck.

This year, after a two-hour plane trip and a one-hour boat ride on the same river with local guides, Wiersema and Robson found the rare new lily.

The new species appears to have evolved within the last 2,000 years, she said, and is unusual for Canada.

"Part of what was exciting about this was that the flora in Canada is quite well-known. Most scientists don't really expect to find a new species of plant anymore," Robson said.

[Twoyboy]

Is it this one?

Haha, no, but that one's good. This one was an ID parody. It listed creatures and features which "could not possibly have evolved"... and were utter bastards. Like the wasp that lays its eggs in live spiders, and several types of nasty parasitic worms.

[Davis 51]

Whenever I try to counter with evidence recent occurrences of evolution, I almost always get hit with the line "That's microevolution, not macroevolution." I know this is bullshit, but I have absolutely no idea how to counter it on the spot.

[Kristoff]

It's like saying "That's one car (of many) moving, not traffic".