7 Animals that are Evolving Right Before Our Eyes

[Statler Waldorf]

---

That has be be one of the lamest anologies I've ever heard, but you keep on plugging there champ.

---

Obviously you have never taken any formal logic courses. I used to pizza example for two reasons: it has the exact logical form as the common descent argument, and it was simple so you could follow it.

Here are some examples of affirming the consequent from Wiki, notice they have the exact same form.

1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
2. Bill Gates is rich.
3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

1. If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
2. I have a sore throat.
3. Therefore, I have the flu.

The structure of your evolution is as follows,

1. If common descent happened, we'd see small changes in animals via natural selection
2. We see small changes in animals via natural selection
3. Therefore, common descent happened.

This argument is just as logically invalid as the pizza, Bill Gates, and Flu arguments.

---

---

Again, equivocation. Point to a Creationist who does not agree with the fact that natural selection happens all the time.

But if they claim that natural selection isn't part of evolution, then they're being willfully stupid. Take the elephant example, for instance. Let's say that poachers eventually kill all the elephants with tusks and all the tuskless elephants remain. Poaching then stops because nobody wants a tuskless elephant. Elephants breed & thrive without tusks. That's evolution. Granted, it's not the only way evolution happens, but one of the most important. True, you still have an elephant, only sans tusks, but who knows what that elephant will become hundreds of thousands of years in the future?

---

You see you are not being specific enough. You say "you have evolution", but evolution is a vast theory and pointing to one part of it that happens to be valid does not make the whole theory valid. Sure you have natural selection taking place, which can give you tuskless elephants; this does not prove common descent though. It is a reduction in information (or at most a reshuffling), in order for all life on earth to arise from very simple single celled ancestors (what common descent claims) you would have to have information increasing examples of natural selection happening all the time. Do we observe that? No, we have a handful of heavily disputed examples. It is kind of like a person claiming a ball can reach the top of a mountain by itself, and then when asked to demonstrate this, the person points at the fact that the ball can roll down the mountain on its own. It's hardly a valid proof. Does that make sense at all?