Megusic

hey, hope this place is ok...

So the other day I was watching this show on the Discovery Channel about evolution. A large part of the show was about Lucy and the flat faced man. Unfortunately I had just started the show when my roomies and one of their boyf's came home, so we all started talking and I stopped paying close attention. Anyway, the narrator kept referring to the pre-human world as our "planet of the apes". The boyfriend asked, "planet of the apes?" (i think he was thinking of the movie). I told him, they mean before there people. and he says, "there were always people". i just kinda said, "mmmhmmmm" in a "sure, whatever you say" sarcastic tone. I really didn't know what to say to the guy. he doesn't act religious at all, but went to parochial school his whole life. i haven't invested much time in really getting to understand evolution science, just kind of know the basics, so i wasnt' prepared to launch a conversation that i couldn't back up. plus, i'm really not good at debating on the spot, i get nervous and can't think of anything to say. also, this is a guy i hang around w/ often and just didn't feel like getting into it w/ him. his girlfriend is one of the "i refuse to believe i'm related to a monkey" people and so i'm sure he is too.

OK so now to the point of my post. What is a way that I can respond to such a thing w/out having to launch a giant debate? I mean, he can believe whatever he wants, that's fine by me, but I would at least like to have some sort of response on hand!!

Oolon Colluphid

The shortest answer is to say that if he / she doubts evolution, to go investigate it for himself with an open mind, because everyone who does genuinely do so finds that it’s true. Definitely don’t tackle any objections yourself, there and then. Proper refutations need references, pictures etc. Come back here for resources! But in case some discussion is unavoidable -- and ignorance breeds arrogance, so they may want to talk about it anyway -- here’s a few other bits.

Mentally have to hand three places for them to start their investigation: Dawkins’s Blind Watchmaker, Talk Origins, and Futuyma’s textbook, depending on the level of ignorance and/or arrogance of the person.

If god gets mentioned, say that easily the majority of believers have no problem with evolution. Point them towards Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. Note that evolution is science, and that therefore it doesn’t require god(s), but nor does it comment one way or another on their existence.

If a sentence starts with “I can’t believe that so-and-so...”, be prepared to point out that it is an argument from personal incredulity -- just cos someone can’t see how, doesn’t mean it didn’t. Offer to look into it -- then ask us, and we’ll do it for you!

Read the TO page Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. If the person turns out to be a creationist, rather than just someone who doesn’t know about evolution, he / she can probably be held at bay just by knowing:

• that the second law of thermodynamics refers to open systems, and if the 2LoT argument were right, you couldn’t get a person from a fertilised egg.
  
• that evolution has been observed, both in the wild, eg finches, and in the lab, eg bacteria.
  
• that there are plenty of transitional fossils. If you can’t remember dino-birds, lobe-finned fish or therapsids, get them to define ‘transitional’.
  
• that evolution is not a theory of chance; natural selection is the exact opposite of chance.
  
• that evolution is not ‘only a theory’, as in ‘uncertain’. It is a theory in the same way as atomic theory, relativity theory and quantum theory are -- and has far more evidence behind it than any of those.

If one of those turns up, simply say “not true, because [insert from above list]...”, and offer to get more info if they want.

Remember to be fair: evolution is pretty incredible, and a designer is far easier to imagine... unless you know a bit about nature. Which most people don’t, because they’ve never needed to, and/or are not that interested.

But if they deny evolution, they’d better start getting interested, fast. They need to put up or shut up.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, DT

Oolon Colluphid

Hmmm. Perhaps my all-time favourite pic on the net is this one:



You could print it off, mention that they’re in chronological order except the first and last, and simply ask which are apes and which are human.

And you could mention the broken vitamin C gene we share with apes. And the telomeres (end bits that tell a chromosome it’s done) in the middle of our chromosome 2, showing that it is a fused version of the ape 2p and 2q separate chromosomes.

Cheers, DT

Undercurrent

Have you considered rolling your eyes and ingnoring passive-aggressively? The fact that you feel strongly enough to rebut him, even if he's just making idle remarks, just validates his opinion.

For fucks sakes, he actually believes that there is a big conspricy of scientists trying to silence overwhelming evidence that there is a god, for no apparent reason. That deserves about as much respect as the belief that aliens are coming from across the galaxy just to hide from us while they probe our cattle anally.

If he's making an organized statement, make one back. But an offhand comment deserves a at best.

Mageth

You might just simply answer this particular comment with something like: "Well, the fossil record clearly indicates there was a long period with no apes or hominids, then apes appear in the record, then hominids, and finally Homo Sapiens." It might be helpful to have some "visual aids" such as DT's skull picture and/or a book or two as recommended reading.

Doubting Didymus

Just my two cents about reading reccommendations: Climbing Mount Improbable is a much much more appropriate book to reccomend to creationists. The Blind Watchmaker focuses on perhiperal issues a lot of the time, while Mount Improbable is specifically talking about how evolution produces staggeringly complex systems in gradual steps through its entire length, which is the antidote to the argument from incredulity.

Secular Pinoy

Closed systems, you mean. And the 2ndLoT is definitely right and absolute, in closed systems. Cheers!

Doubting Didymus

Touche!

Oolon Colluphid

D'oh! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Note to self: must re-read before posting, especially when knocking stuff out off top of head while at work...

For the record, the bullet point should read:

• that the second law of thermodynamics refers to closed systems, and the earth and living things are not closed systems. If the 2LoT argument were right, you couldn’t get a person from a fertilised egg.

Thanks for the catch, SP!

Cheers, DT

Oolon Colluphid

You're probably right DD. I was thinking in terms of the 'Accumulating small change' chapter, which should be mandatory reading for creationists. I don't know how easy CMI would have been to follow without already having that and 'animal space' as a background... probably fine I suppose. Has anyone read CMI and not TBW, or read CMI first?

Cheers, DT