When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution

[Ryengu]

Oh you should have made it clear you were trying the micro/macro evolution fallacy. Since you've decided bacteria can't have species:

The Hawthorn fly species is currently speciating, with the Hawthorns feeding on apples only able to successfully breed with regular Hawthorns 4-6% of the time and has developed it's own distinct life cycle (The Apple Hawthorns mature faster than the regular kind).

The Liger is technically an example of speciation in a single generation, with Ligers unable to mate.

More suitable examples are ring species.

Larus Gulls

The Herring Gull L. argentatus, which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American Herring Gull L. smithsonianus, (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull L. vegae, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull L. vegae birulai, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull L. heuglini, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull L. fuscus. All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain.

The Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe.

Ensatinas

The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley. The complex forms a horseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end. As such it is thought to be an example of incipient speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process".

There's also the Greenish Warbler in the Himalayas if you want to see another.

Thank you for those examples, but do you have any that evolve upward instead of outward? Something actually becoming more complex within a period of observation? That's what I'm really interested in here.
And the liger isn't a species, it's just a hybrid. Being unable to breed disqualifies it from being considered an actual species: "A species is defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

 

[psychodynamica]

maybe, we just don't know yet..... how about that, lets answer the question.... when we have the answer. or is a lack of definition to scary. my bad.

My Regards
The Smoking Fox

 

[Navvan]

People are likely to have already pointed this out, but I'll reiterate. The theory of evolution is solid and not controversial in the least. Its like gravity or cell theory its an observable phenomenon. What is controversial is that it lead to human evolution (and I think that is what the OP friend was arguing).

Humans evolution in turn is supported by the theory of evolution, but Human evolution is not part of the theory of evolution. Saying human evolution is apart of the theory of evolution is like saying determining the distance to distance planets is part of physics. Its putting the solid theory into practical use to make predictions.

Human evolution is not science itself as it can not be recreated. It is simply a prediction based off of evolutionary theory. Fossil evidence is limited and that leaves room for skepticism. Human evolution conflicts with some peoples religious principles, and thus for them choosing not to believe in human evolution isn't stupid. They trust what they know better.

That said human evolution is supported by the fossil evidence that has been found, and there is nothing to conflict this that has been found except from religious sources as far as I'm aware. That is about all you can say to change someones opinion on the matter of evolution.

 

[Eggsnham]

Me and one of my collage friends were having a discussion that came to be about evolution at some point. what you need to understand before replying is that this guy is probably one of the smartest people out there, the guy is a certified genius.
He practices Judaism up to a certain degree (separates meat a dairy and other stuff) but calling him religious will be a vast exaggeration.

So when this guy, who is probably the smartest guy I ever met told me he didn't believe that humans are apart of evolution it blew me away. To make things worse he said "there are some things that humans are meant NOT to understand. and we are both Comp-Sci majors so rational thought is a given.

So..... WTF?!?!

I agree with your friend, we humans are A LOT dumber than we think we are.

We're focusing too hard on the big questions that will likely never be answered, and too little on the things which actually plague us. Like, you know, plagues.

The existence of an all powerful deity is something that no man can answer about with utmost certainty, the reason being that we don't know.

If there is a god, or several gods, then they probably transcend all that we know or can hope to know, and trying to disprove their existence is stupid.

It's the same thing for trying to prove their existence, there's no proof for either argument and it's really all about personal belief.

But yeah, rational science is right, Gods can't exist because our findings on Earth, which they transcend, tell us so.

But at the end of the day, I seriously care less and less about the question of our origin, it's just not something I feel we should be worrying about.

 

[lacktheknack]

I agree that evolution happens, but is it why we're here? I don't see the issue with asking.

There IS nothing incorrect about this statement, and science is ABOUT asking the questions. But it doesn't STOP there.

So, you take your observation, and your hypothesis, and you develop a prediction that would be true if your hypothesis is correct, and you perform an experiment to see the results.

And then repeat.

The difference between science and philosophy? They both expect you to ask questions. It's -demanded- in both disciplines.

The difference is that science then says 'Now go do something about it.'

EDIT: Also, creationism is perfectly falsifiable. I thought you said that your wonderful internet has proven beyond all doubt that there is no God...?

Science has not proven or disproven the existence of God. Science has yet to come up with an experiment to test the existence of god. God is simply not in the equation.

Evolution doesn't disprove or prove or suggest or discourage the existance of God. All it does is say how life exists. if certain subsets of people have an idea of God that is at odds with that, that is no more science's problem than the belief that it is possible that water can turn into wine when drank in a church. Science seeks to determine reality, and religious beliefs that are in contrast with reality are simply that... they hold beliefs that are untrue.

First part: Good explanation. I've just been told that the question is stupid, and I've never seen why. Good to see that I have an ally on that somewhere.

Second part: And yet he's told me that he can PROVE God doesn't exist. I'm assuming he's being silly?

Anyways, I watched his video, I wasn't too impressed. But considering how it's been a long day, religious arguments are epic downers as well as time sinks, and I have an LP to update, I'll let him think he's won. Doesn't affect me any.

 

[DracoSuave]

But yeah, rational science is right, Gods can't exist because our findings on Earth, which they transcend, tell us so.

Science doesn't say anything about the existance of God. No experiments as to the matter of the divine have been performed.

Critical thinking dictates that it is irrational to believe in God because there is no evidence to indicate a god could exist. A lack of cogent argument can be made pro-God. This isn't science at work, however. Science and logic are two different fields of examination and analysis.

But critical thinking also says that it is irrational to state that god's existance is disproven, as no evidence has been presented to show the non-existance of God.

Individual tenets of some religions can be disproven, but that does not disprove God, that only disproves those tenets. There are many religions out there that stand up on their principles, and science doesn't support nor deny their theologies.

 

[Rayansaki]

I wouldn't have such a friend.

 

[Ryengu]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html

Interesting. Call me when they do those algae though. That would seem to be the more definitive experiment, from what I gathered.

 

[dj Facchiano]

yeah... No. I've seen these before, They say that a really smart person doesn't believe in evolution to try to convert you or mess with you or something. I call B.S (His "Friend" doesn't exist)

 

[Phoenixlight]

Fixed that for you. A "theory" in science is approximately the same as a "fact" in normal speak. In short, it explains all the evidence, has no real counter-evidence, and is still the most simple explanation. The stupid, it burns.

Nice work quoting me on things that I didn't say. I haven't personally seen any evidence to prove without a doubt that it's the only possible explanation of how humans came to be and if you're stupidity is burning you in some way you should see a doctor about it.

 

[Navvan]

Snip

I've seem to have misrepresented a few of my points so I'll try to be more clear.

First off let me state that I agree with human evolution and I did not mean to imply believing in creationism vs human evolution was an equally valid choice based on evidence. What I meant was that believing in creationism vs human evolution is an understandable choice as not everyone bases their beliefs on evidence or logic, in fact billions don't. That's why religion persists. My point was people trust what they know and like it or not that trumps evidence.

Secondly when I stated that human evolution was controversial I did not mean it was controversial in the sense it was a frequently contested between people in the field. That is why I talked about only evidence supporting it existing. What I meant is that it was controversial as there is a clash between two of the three key ways people try to understand the world, Religion/tradition vs Science. Again, I'm not saying those are equally valid choices but those are two popular ones.

Next, a prediction made by science can not rightly be called science. Its a misnomer as science is a method, and thus in order to be it you must follow that method. That is not a bad thing, but it is truth. That doesn't mean there can't be evidence to support it, but that isn't science. I can't really be any more clear on that point I suppose. I'd like to end this paragraph by saying Science can support something, and that science does support human evolution.

The holocaust example actually supports my point. People trust what they know whether it is irrational or not. That doesn't make them stupid it makes them human. Those people who hate Israel because it took a sizable chunk of land they think of as theirs. Thus they confirm to the belief of those around them rather than those who assisted in the taking of this land. This leads to the belief in a conspiracy and dis-regard for the evidence. They just don't trust the source as much as their own. The same goes with human evolution. Telling them they are wrong and there is the evidence is not going to change that fact as much as you would like it to. That doesn't mean to do nothing, but it does mean you should just have a calm explanation ready and do not get overtly confrontational about it.

Now for the unreasonable skepticism. You are only looking at it from the point of view as someone who puts value in science as a source. Not saying you shouldn't as you definitely should but the sad fact is that not everyone does. So try to look at it from someone who does not actually understand the ideas illuminated by science and/or hold another source to be above it. You're trusting a source and they're trusting a source. You can yell that your source is better (it is I agree) until you're blue in the face, but that is not going to make them trust your source over theirs. Think how does some religious guy spouting their religious script at you makes you feel? They actually view that a solid argument because they trust the source despite the logical flaws in doing so.

The only thing one can do is educate and try to get them to trust your source by teaching them about it. If you have a friend who doesn't believe in human evolution show them the supporting evidence (preferably in the field of biology) in things they do believe in and try to relate that back to evolution in a respectful manner. Also don't insert emotional appeals or exaggerations into your argument as it discredits you as a source.

 

[Arsen]

You're assuming that every single detail behind the modern understanding of evolution is the full picture.

/thread

 

[bombadilillo]

You're assuming that every single detail behind the modern understanding of evolution is the full picture.

/thread

the "/thread" is idiotic at the best of times. But pulling it out on page 19 after a single sentence...damn son.

*Clap*

*clap*



*clap*

 

[RaNDM G]

If your friend favors creationism over evolution, or if he simply chooses not to have an opinion, that's his right. There's certainly room for both scientific and religious viewpoints in Western culture, and there certainly isn't a problem choosing to not have an opinion on the subject.

Personally, I believe in a mix of both. God created the universe through his will. From the dust that emerged, galaxies were formed, then stars and planets, and finally the building blocks of life such as water and iron. Once the environment was ready, evolution took over.

 

[shedra]

Okay I know I will get flamed for saying this but I'm not that much of a believer in evolution. What question always comes into my head when people mention evolution is 'If we evolved from apes how come apes suddenly stopped evolving into humans' Just something that is always on the back of my mind.

Apes aren't a species, Humans are Apes.
We are Homo Sapiens, we evolved from Homo Erectus (it's ok to laugh).
Homo Sapiens have been around for 250,000 years. Other human species did emerge and evolve, but none of them could compete with us or their enviroments.

Homo Antecessor
Homo Cepranensis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Gautengensis
Homo Georgicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Heidelbergensis
Homo Neanderthalensis
Homo Rhodesiensis
Homo Rudolfensis
Homo Sapien Idaltu

The other modern apes are in a seperate path of genetics. Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Gorilla all have their own evolutionary paths with a common ancestor to man placed around 7 million years ago.

Well you learn something new everyday. Shows how much I paid attention in science!!!

Or it shows the raw incompetence of the educator.
By the way, all those species (s)he named are listed in the fossil record. We have found their bones.
We have "missing links". We found loads of them.

 

[VanTesla]

The only theory about evolution, is when new data comes in with better technology and data, to expand the fact of evolution. Example: fact we all have a brain, theory we are still figuring how the brain works (we know much, but still small pieces of information are questioned).

When Darwin started his theory, he did not have enough data to support the base of Evolution as a fact. We do have a base fact that evolvution is real, but is open to new infomation that comes from more precise technology, study's, and etc.

Mutations are part of evolution and just in the past millenium, humans can now have milk even after child rearing. All humans use to be lactose intolerant and now the majority are not, that is evolution from a dominant gene that makes humans more adaptable.

 

[mrsuperunderpants]

Okay I know I will get flamed for saying this but I'm not that much of a believer in evolution. What question always comes into my head when people mention evolution is 'If we evolved from apes how come apes suddenly stopped evolving into humans' Just something that is always on the back of my mind.

Apes aren't a species, Humans are Apes.
We are Homo Sapiens, we evolved from Homo Erectus (it's ok to laugh).
Homo Sapiens have been around for 250,000 years. Other human species did emerge and evolve, but none of them could compete with us or their enviroments.

Homo Antecessor
Homo Cepranensis
Homo Ergaster
Homo Gautengensis
Homo Georgicus
Homo Habilis
Homo Heidelbergensis
Homo Neanderthalensis
Homo Rhodesiensis
Homo Rudolfensis
Homo Sapien Idaltu

The other modern apes are in a seperate path of genetics. Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Gorilla all have their own evolutionary paths with a common ancestor to man placed around 7 million years ago.

Well you learn something new everyday. Shows how much I paid attention in science!!!

Or it shows the raw incompetence of the educator.
By the way, all those species (s)he named are listed in the fossil record. We have found their bones.
We have "missing links". We found loads of them.

Not really incompetence more like I don't remember much anymore. I'm 27, so it's been a long timne since I was in school and science wasn't really my strongest subject.