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, 1 reply)

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)