Creationists
Make me want to know through my fingers and start chewing my knuckles to avoid punching them full square in the face.

The most recent discussion I had with one when challenging their "heaven and earth made in six days" bollocks was "well, in those days, a day wasn't 24 hours in duration" -- what the ... ?

If there are any intelligent design followers or creationists amongst the B3TA readership I apologise if the next statement is considered to be either inflammatory or in some other way unkind / unhelpful but if you want proof for evolution, look at your hands. See those opposable thumbs there?
(JohntheDane, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:55, 61 replies)

while I share much the same view as you
just saying "look at your thumbs" isn't proof of anything other than that you have thumbs.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:58, closed)

^^ I agree
Thumbs prove nothing
(wehttamman via B3ta for microwave, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)

I think he's asking you
to consider why you have thumbs like that.

My favourites amongst the silliest arguments are
"How come we can't see evolution happening around us? Nothing's changing."
of course not, it goes by generations. However, the reason we get bacteria resistant to antibiotics is because it truly is evidence of survival of the strongest.

and also, the irreducibly complexity of things, usually the eye is given as an example. The eye exists in all different forms of development in various creatures.

etc etc..
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)

Irreducible complexity always was a retarded argument anyway.
It assumes a single use for a certain feature. It also assumes that evolution is an additive process and fails to allow for evolutionary subtraction.

however, careful with the "survival of the strongest/fittest". That's a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary processes and a massive simplification.

I find engaging them in debate about the conflict between the likely function of eukaryotic introns versus the central dogma with respect to evolutionary processes usually distracts them for long enough to give them a sharp tap on the head and throw them in a canal, though.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:12, closed)

misuse of "survival of the fittest"
agreed, but I think with bacteria becoming resistant, I think it's probably the best way to explain it.

In the same way with elephants, it's "survival of those whose tusks aren't worth the bother to ivory hunters"
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:22, closed)

kind of.
"fittest" doesn't mean what most people think it does, though. "best suited to purpose" would be better, but technically the whole concept isn't really correct.

But I agree it's probably a necessary evil to use it sometimes.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:27, closed)

Also, if the definition of a 'day' is 'the time it takes for the earth to turn completely once'
then it certainly was a different time from 24 hours, back when the earth was new.

But I'm not disagreeing with you really - you're right.
(Juan Quar is clinging to her front teeth on, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:05, closed)

Or a creationist could take the view that in the bible it says that a day is like a thousand years in the eyes of God
So it could have taken 6000 years for him to create the earth

Just playing devils advocate
(wehttamman via B3ta for microwave, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:08, closed)

Does the bible say that?
or is it an interpretation?

Perhaps to try to make the bible fit in with observed phenomena.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:14, closed)

back then
wasn't the day even shorter?
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:22, closed)

Agreed.
The argument, 'look at your thumbs' could even give strength to their argument.

How would you respond to the argument that thumbs are the perfect example of ID, in that none of the other animals who we are 'related to' have them, and none of them have yet evolved to have them.
(The Kwyjibo A big, dumb, balding North American ape., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:07, closed)

I would respond by pointing out that all the animals we share a common ancestor with
do have them, as it goes.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:13, closed)

Chimpanzees and apes all have thumbs :/

( spangolin - the odds are good but the goods are odd, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:36, closed)

Koalas have two thumbs on each hand!

( spangolin - the odds are good but the goods are odd, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:37, closed)

Don't forget chlamydia!
Now, which dirty sod screwed a koala for them to get that?
( Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...", Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:52, closed)

My favourite riposte to creationists is: "Do you take after your mum or dad?"
or are you completely bereft of genetic material?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:07, closed)

Argueing with creationists and their kind will get you nowhere
except a corronary ward. Don't do it.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:08, closed)

The overlords created us in a laboratory as mind controlled slaves.
Shirley everyone knows this?
(Bear Pookie The Frankly Challenged. Halloween is coming to town., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:12, closed)

I'm not Shirley
Nor do I believe in the Matrix.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:15, closed)

Does anyone else worry
that evolution is going to come to a standstill because natural selection for humans doesn't really happen any more (except for the Darwin Awards, obviously)? With the welfare state and things like that, people who can't survive themselves now just rely on those who can to support them, so it's no longer survival of the fittest
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:12, closed)

No, because that's not how evolution works.
and the concept of survival of the fittest is immensely irritating, as it is at best a simplification and usually misunderstood. Evolution will not and has not come to a standstill. And apart from anything else, you've said "evolution" when what you mean is "human evolution". what about other species?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:16, closed)

well I meant evolution with regards to humans
I thought that was sort of obvious.

I didn't mean to irritate you with my simplistic and misunderstood views.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:26, closed)

and I didn't mean to suggest your post was irritating
it wasn't, sorry. I meant the "survival of the fittest" concept, which is misused and misunderstood and isn't really right.

I wasn't aiming the tone of my reply to be aggressive, just to answer your question. No, evolution hasn't and won't stop, human or otherwise. Without getting into complex details, there are still advantages conveyed to humanity by evolutionary mutations, they just aren't always obvious. We're all getting older and taller, for instance.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:32, closed)

ok fair enough
I thought you jumped down my throat a bit because I only have GCSE biology to build my understanding on.

The tall/old thing is true, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking more of the stuff that made us survive when we really needed to, although without a better understanding of biology and science in general I suppose it'll take a long time to explain it all to me.

This would normally be where Psychochomp calls me thick.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:36, closed)

I've only got GSCE biology as well, if it's any consolation.
I've just somehow ended up in stem cell research. Fuck knows how that happened.

It doesn't really require an understanding of science to get the explanation. The survival of the fittest thing is irritating because it over-simplifies, and I generally despise dumbing down of stuff. But basically, the two major flaws with it are that firstly it implies some form of intention (that an organism somehow intended to be "better" at something and secondly and most importantly, it sees the whole thing as a "one-change, one-effect" thing - i.e. "DNA mutation causes thing to be a bit quicker and that thing escapes a predator to breed and therefore that mutation survives and thrives" ... it doesn't really happen like that. Something might change in the DNA, and lie dormant for eons, while other changes happen around, some that may convey some change in the phenotype (physical properties of the organism, like eye colour or height or whatever) but most won't, but sometime later down the track, some up-regualtion or down-regulation of a system (so, like twisting a dimmer switch on a light) might suddenly cause an effect in the organism when coupled with this dormant DNA does actually help that organism over time, and this may be passed on if enough individuals have the same or similar things happening.

Best example I know of is that the only reason we can give birth is that we accidentally "absorbed" the DNA sequence of a virus, ERV-3, and it became part of the genome but as "introns" (introns are bits of DNA that we used to think didn't do anything). This particular virus is for fooling the immune system, so it blocks white blood cells from attacking things the body thinks are foreign. As far as a mother is concerned, a foetus is foreign because it contains the fathers DNA. So somewhere way back when in mammalian evolution, this virus DNA was incorporated in an accidental mutation. Didn't matter until animals moved towards live births, and then it became the most important mutation there is, because it prevents a mother rejecting a foetus.

who knows what else might happen in the future like this?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:52, closed)

That's interesting
I'm now convinced that God is one special dude.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:56, closed)

he's certainly got l33t nucleic acid manipulation skillzors. Fo'sho.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:50, closed)

wow that's pretty cool
I think I've learned something, thanks :D
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:16, closed)

no worries.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:50, closed)

We may try and evade evolution, but it will bite us in the arse just the same.
When some catastrophic disaster befalls us, those with the required talents will survive. It may be many, or it may be very few.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:18, closed)

let's hope it somehow involves
sewing and making desserts, otherwise I'm screwed.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:27, closed)

I'm sure you'll be fine
You list three essential talents in my book.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:38, closed)

Well this massive penis I have must be useful for something one day.

( Undulating Tentacles of Love getting fun down to acceptable levels, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:43, closed)

the womenfolk can shelter under it
when the apocalypse begins
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:45, closed)

Evolution says use it or loose it.
So get busy big boy.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:47, closed)

While there may be the vaguest element of truth in terms of physical evolution (resistance to disease, physical abnormalities etc.)
'fittest' doesn't always mean strongest. The ability to keep people alive has given us countless amazingly brilliant minds who would, in earlier times, have perished before they ever contributed to humanity. The evolution of human collective knowledge and the things we are today capable of improve measurably from generation to generation. Mentally, humans are evolving at a staggering pace.
( Devon Dan without geometry, there would be no point, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:51, closed)

this is why at the very least
"best suited for purpose" should be used instead of "fittest". But fittest never did mean what we take it to mean. and Darwin never even said it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:52, closed)

How about if we think of the creationist (Christian) view vs. evolutionist (Atheist) view this way?
If Christians are wrong then meh, they die and nothing happens like the rest of us.

Or they're right and we're all kicking ourselves and end up in hell.

So basically no one has the last laugh or the Christians (or other religion) have the last laugh.

So it should be said that Atheism is a religion in the sense that we're believing that there is no God. We have no proof to say there isn't, same that they have no real proof to say there is.
(wehttamman via B3ta for microwave, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:16, closed)

ATHEISM IS A RELIGION IN THE SAME WAY THAT MY HOBBY IS NOT COLLECTING STAMPS
Also: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:21, closed)

can I join your religion?
I don't collect stamps either.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:21, closed)

That sounds great
We can not meet every Sunday
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:22, closed)

Who can we hate?
every religion seems to hate somebody.

Can we hate coin collectors?
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:28, closed)

Train spotters.
(says the bird spotter / Roman reenactor...)
( Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...", Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:31, closed)

fuck extraordinary.
claims require proof. Make a hypothesis. produce evidence to back that up and you have a theory. this is how it works.

This is also why claiming either ID or creationism as a theory can just be laughed at, because if you don't even understand what the word means, then you're going to struggle generally.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:25, closed)

^ this.
Fucking fundies.

Try this if you feel like laughing at a few.
www.fstdt.com/QuoteArchives.aspx?Archive=1
( Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...", Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:29, closed)

Oh I love the Obama with the glowing eyes picture...

(theremin put the lotion in the basket on, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 14:32, closed)

I don't think its very Christian to have the last laugh.
They should turn the other cheek and let the atheists kick them up the bum.

Christ told them so.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:21, closed)

that's not how it works.
a belief system requires that there be no proof. You can't believe in something you know exists. I don't believe in the absence of something as an atheist. Rather, I see no need to believe in the presence of something. It's a massive and I'm afraid rather simple distinction. See: Pastafarianism, which is a pisstake but happens to rather cover this. Or Russell's Teapot, if you want a more general explanation.

I can't even begin to start with how wrong you are about tolerating Creationism because we tolerate religion. Educating children rubbish rather than the closest we have to the truth right now would be a good start, though.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:22, closed)

You've basically stated 'Pascal's Wager' there.
The consequences of believing and being wrong are minimal.
The consequences of not believing and being wrong could be eternal and possibly quite unpleasant.

Therefore, the rational thing to do is to believe in god.

But there's all sorts of problems with this argument, the major one being that it privileges the christian god over others, and there's no more evidence to suggest that 'god' (as in Jehovah or whatever) exists than there is to say that Quetzalcoatl (the feathered serpent god of the Mayans) exists. Maybe Quetzalcoatl doesn't care if we believe or not, and it's ok to be an atheist...
(theremin put the lotion in the basket on, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 14:27, closed)

Not all Christians are creationist.
In fact, it's something of a minority view, and far more modern than you'd think.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 18:59, closed)

Examples All Around Us
Hi - I want to add a little clarity to my earlier, which isn't as clear, perhaps, as it might be.

In terms of evidence for evolution around us (I'm not a biologist, coincidentally), surely these qualify?:

MRSA
C.Diff

Over and above this (some pun intended) if one looks at the average height of humans over the ages that's increased: one might say that this is more to do with better nutrition (etc) but perhaps there's an evolutionary path as well?

I'd also (controversially?) suggest that obesity might be an evolutionary reaction to our consumer-driven, easy-win, no-fight society?
(JohntheDane, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:24, closed)

Damn, you are showing your ignorance.
Being Obese in our society adds no genetic advantage, so will not add to evolution. Fatties don't breed so well as proper shaped people, neither do thinnies.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:34, closed)

proper shaped people?!
psh, sizeist.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:40, closed)

I couldn't think of another word except Normal, and that's worse
even average isn't good as the average is still fat.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:46, closed)

I love the capitalisation of Normal
The Normies v the Thinnies. The Fatties can fight the winner.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:58, closed)

As soon as I've finshed this pie, I'll flatten them.

( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:15, closed)

Agreed.
My apologies - you're right, didn't think that one through.

D'oh.
(JohntheDane, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:41, closed)

Height changes
have been observed over a couple of generations, corresponding to diet changes - modern Japan is one example. Also, the average height in Anglo-Saxon England was about what it is now.

Obesity is a reaction to a past of scarcity. Evolution takes time to catch up; we're well-adapted for the world our great-grandparents lived in, we're taking our chances in this one.

Creationists are misguided because science should be used to become right, not to prove oneself right.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:38, closed)

The height one is still a matter of debate as far as I'm aware.
the beauty of evolution is that the timescale thing might not be the case at all, we could be looking at dormant systems within the cells for an almost instantaneous change in some situations.

the one thing that is certain right now, and one of the most important bits of work Dawkins did before he stopped being a proper scientist and dedicated his life to pointless fundy-baiting, is that all bets are off in terms of what we should consider "evolutionary pressures" on humanity. This is where the idea that we've stopped evolving comes from - not because the "real" rules of the game have changed, but the rules as far as mainstream understanding of the game goes certainly have.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:49, closed)

Increase in size is not evidence of evolution.
It merely means that the local conditions have changed, and that the current generation has adapted to them. In Japan's case, a large increase in the consumption of animal protein and dairy products.

It works the other way: the population of Argyll, Sutherland and the Western Highlands were the tallest people in Europe on average in 1900. The ones who migrated to Glasgow lost up to 8 inches in average height, due to poor nutrition. Yet their cousins, many of whom lived less than 40 miles remained tall.
(all my scars face forward possesses 2.5% of a hyperalloy combat chassis, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 18:21, closed)

A person's height is a better predictor of career progression than their sex.
Not that upper management are any more likely to have children, mind you.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:03, closed)