FTR, the decision whether or not to participate in any future debate about evolution will be based on how much
patience I could summon, not
bravery. :crazy: They're always so full of worn-out canards, I don't see how I could manage to answer them without sounding either motherly, snarky, or arrogant. :waitasec:
Imagine the response to someone coming on here and challenging us to a debate on the Caylee Anthony case. To top it off, their challenges consist of things like
"Why didn't the police arrest Zenaida Gonzalez for not bringing Caylee home that day?" or "How could Casey have done it? She was busy working at Universal Studios!" or "Casey's sister coulda diddit!" :crazy:
You might be able to answer politely once or twice, but if they kept challenging our "bravery," while making it obvious that they haven't a grasp of even the most basic facts about the case, then the kindest and most polite thing you'd probably be able to do would be to advise them to take some time to read about it - and from sources other than the Anthony family.
So that's my answer to the bravery challenge.
As proof that I'm not exaggerating, see the bizarre challenge in this thread that
"No one can ever say why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from them."
On the contrary:
FAQ: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
Answer: Huh?? Scientists think that one group of apes, in response to their environment, started evolving in a way that would eventually lead to humanity (and many other now-extinct hominids). Why on earth should that cause the rest of the apes to go extinct?
It's as silly as saying "If I am descended from Irish ancestors [which I am], why are there still Irish people around?" (Yes, I'm aware that I haven't evolved from my Irish forebears; the point is that whatever happened to my ancestors, it didn't affect the rest of the Irish population.)
If you don't believe me, please note that the leading creationist organization Answers in Genesis agrees with me, and now lists this argument in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes
So, far from being an "unanswerable question," it's already been
answered ad nauseum.
As for the equally woeful claim that
"We'd be the only species living alongside our lesser evolved "cousins.""
Well, on top of Nova's excellent answer about common ancestors, I'm sorry to have to point out the existence of wolves (the ancestors of dogs). We also still have reptiles, even though they evolved into frogs... and we even still have
their ancestors, swimming in the ocean...
So the Anthony case analogy really wasn't an exaggeration.
I'll finish with a quote about evolution from Darwin himself, which he wrote
in his book. (Which, as a reminder, was called the "Origin of
Species", not the "Origin of
Life"):
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
That doesn't look to me like the words of a man who wrote the book to prove there is no God, as he was wrongly accused of here.
