This is a great technique—you could probably save time/explanatory effort if you used the moths example—moths going light-skinned or dark-skinned as trees get more/less polluted. The obvious retort to your rabbits, is, ok, that’s how mutant freaks get eliminated, great. So species stay the same. You need (at some point) to illustrate how species change through useful mutations, and you may as well do it at the same time as you illustrate natural selection.
Note that if the person is already familiar with standard creationist arguments, the moth example may not be the best one, unless you want to spend time arguing over the details of the experiment… (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html)
That also illustrates adaptation to a changing environment, and why evolution doesn’t always stagnate, on top of almost touching on evolution not having a target.
After arguing with another friend for close to a decade, I’ve determined that using the moths and similar examples doesn’t help it all. In fact it merely reinforced for him that evolution was “destructive” rather than creative.
In fact it merely reinforced for him that evolution was “destructive” rather than creative.
...shouldn’t the conclusion then be “Sure, it’s destructive, but it works!”? That he would focus on whether it’s “destructive” or “creative” rather than whether it works / it happened kind of scares me.
This is a great technique—you could probably save time/explanatory effort if you used the moths example—moths going light-skinned or dark-skinned as trees get more/less polluted. The obvious retort to your rabbits, is, ok, that’s how mutant freaks get eliminated, great. So species stay the same. You need (at some point) to illustrate how species change through useful mutations, and you may as well do it at the same time as you illustrate natural selection.
Note that if the person is already familiar with standard creationist arguments, the moth example may not be the best one, unless you want to spend time arguing over the details of the experiment… (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html)
Agreed, that is better.
That also illustrates adaptation to a changing environment, and why evolution doesn’t always stagnate, on top of almost touching on evolution not having a target.
After arguing with another friend for close to a decade, I’ve determined that using the moths and similar examples doesn’t help it all. In fact it merely reinforced for him that evolution was “destructive” rather than creative.
...shouldn’t the conclusion then be “Sure, it’s destructive, but it works!”? That he would focus on whether it’s “destructive” or “creative” rather than whether it works / it happened kind of scares me.
By “destructive” he meant “not able to generate additional complexity, ergo Macroevolution doesn’t exist.” (He was totally fine with microevolution).