Doddy started this thread asking how we can convince creationists that evolution is true, a valid description of how extant life came to be on this earth. Some who read my posts on this thread will probably think that I am just trying to be cute and have pulled the thread off topic. The opposite is true. My posts directly relate to Doddy's topic by giving an example of how miserably flaccid we can be in presenting our case. Modulus demonstrates this problem very nicely.
Modulus writes:
In all fairness that is the defining feature of the surviving synapsids. It is supposed that other synapsids lactated too. Cynodonts for example.
In all fairness, 'surviving synapsids' and mammals are synonymous. (I think. I'm no expert here, but I understand that mammals are the only surviving taxon of the synapsids.) "It is supposed" is unfortunately the only justification that creationists see when they look for the evidence that is supposed to substantiate the theory of evolution. "Cynodonts for example" of what? There is no soft tissue remains of cynodonts or other indication that they milk fed their offspring. Remember, Doddy is looking for
compelling examples that underpin evolutionary theory.
Just look at what the monotremes do.
Why? They are just another mammal that milk feeds its offspring. That they lay eggs is totally beside the point. There are oviparous and viviparous reptiles as well. The point is that producing milk adequate for the survival of offspring is a very complex business. Mammals do it. Reptiles don't. Yes, this is a standard 'irreducible complexity' argument, but one that anyone finding comfort in the refutation of evolutionary theory could deem to be quite compelling and conclusive. 'It is supposed' and irrelevant examples are only going to serve to solidify them in their convictions.
Honestly, I am not trying to be obnoxious. It just seems to come naturally. Modulus is one of the posters I most admire on this forum. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the first step in meeting Doddy's criterion for providing convincing arguments to creationists for the theory of evolution is to stop providing anti-arguments; things like Modulus' statement: "
After all, we evolved from fish - but fish don't have lungs!
which is really an argument
against evolution.
Actually, what I was looking for in my post's challenge was for someone to point out that mammary glands are modified sweat glands (or apocrine - i.e., ducted glands ); That reptiles have just such glands that serve a variety of functions (although you have to be careful when you google on "reptiles glands", which will produce many sites that erroneously state that reptiles, because they are scaled animals, have no glands); That sweat glands and reptilian apocrine glands produce a large variety of fats, proteins, and other molecules and compounds similar to those produced in milk; That there are amphibians (certain frog species, in particular) that lodge their eggs in pockets that form in their skin and once the froglets hatch they feed on a waxy nutrient exuded by apocrine glands in the frogs skin. Hopefully, someone with access to cheap labor (i. e., graduate students) can provide us with some references to these last statements. I'm far too lazy to try to track these down.
For me, some of the most compelling arguments for evolution are the ones that show that many of the complex systems, like mammary glands, flagella, or what ever that seem to emerge suddenly and miraculously actually have strong antecedents in cladistic ancestors. Irreducible complexity is an illusion born of ignorance.
™ Version 4.2
