Batman and the brain

I haven't finished this week's stack of comics yet, but one of them has made an impression on me since finishing them. It's not every week that I get even one that does that, so this has been pretty special.

I'm talking about issue #43 of Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo's excellent run on Batman. The current storyline began in the aftermath of an epic confrontation with Batman and The Joker, resulting in the apparent death of Batman. Gotham City has decided that it can't be without the Caped Crusader though, so Commissioner Gordon now patrols the streets as a new armored Batman. Oh, and it turns out that Bruce Wayne is very much alive, and he's doing charity work. The most recent issue reveals why he hasn't returned in his role as the city's resident superhero.

MILD SPOILERS AHEAD. 

It turns out that he did die, only to be brought back to life (don't worry about the process). As his brain was healed, the pathways didn't come back together in entirely the same way. All of the details are explained in a conversation between Wayne's trusty butler, Alfred, and Clark Kent (yeah - Superman). Clark points out that it's not "really" Bruce anymore, as his brain isn't entirely the same. One tangible result was that he no longer remembered his life as Batman. Of course, Alfred informed him about his past and his motivation for being a hero - the murder of his parents. 

And while Bruce certainly felt something, the pain was no longer there. In other words, the very thing that motivated him to become Batman - the aspect of his personality that made him who he was - was gone. That's why he's no longer patrolling the streets in the Batmobile. He's still the same good man, but the drive is gone.

I kept thinking about this idea, even though it's one that's been on my mind before. One of the reasons I have a hard time getting behind the idea of an afterlife is that so much of who we are is dependent on what's going on physically in our skulls. Get a serious head injury or a disease like Alzheimer's, and you won't seem like the same person to all of your friends and family anymore. What reason would we think that our personalities would somehow remain intact when our brains are completely non-functional and even decomposed?

I've heard religious apologists go on about how meaningless life must be if all we are is determined by the physical and chemical processes of the brain. All this tells us though is what they think, not what's real or not. Because what if that is what makes us who we are? Are we going to just completely give up and become nihilists because we're the product of a natural and physical process? I don't think so.

So, is Bruce Wayne still the same person when he's no longer motivated by what drove him his entire life? He's similar in many ways, but is it really him? If you remove the parts of my brain that make me love my family, get excited about comic books, want to write in my blog - is that still me? I'm not sure how much can change and have me still be me, but I know that if you change enough, eventually we can no longer say that we're dealing with the same Lance Christian Johnson.

Thanks, Big Pharma!

When I went to see a doctor last summer, I was asked whether I was taking any medications. Specifically, the doctor wanted to know if I was taking anything for my blood pressure, as it was running a bit high. I told the doctor that I used to, but I had stopped.

She looked at me a bit puzzled and asked me why.

I didn't have a good answer.

I figured it was time to get back on track with my blood pressure after my last dentist appointment. The poor hygienist had to check it three times until it was finally low enough for it be okay to start my teeth cleaning. (I don't know why I need to have low blood pressure when they clean my teeth, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason.) She also asked me about any medications, and once again I had to confess that I had stopped taking medication several years ago for no good reason.

When I made my first appointment with my new doctor (as my wife and I are on a new insurance provider) I was asked yet again why I had stopped taking my medication. I actually had an answer, and I went with an honest one - I was simply being stupid.

The thing is, my blood pressure has always run a bit high. I'm fairly certain that it runs high on both sides of my family as well. Yeah, I could lose some weight, but that's been the case for some time. I'd still like to do that, but who knows if losing weight would fix the problem? It might not. And until then, it's probably better to take care of it if there's something that can be done.

So, why was I being so stupid? I don't know. For some reason, I didn't feel good about having to take medication. I felt like I was some kind of a failure for not getting my weight under control. Also, when I would tell certain friends and family members that I was on blood pressure medication, they would look at me like I just admitted to developing a crack habit.

It's kinda crazy when I think about it now. I'm not going to single people out, but more than one indicated that it was probably a bad idea - that it would be better to try and get it down "naturally". (Not sure why "naturally" is automatically a better option. In fact, that very notion is an outright fallacy.) I was also told that the pharmaceutical industry (or "Big Pharma", ya know) was only interested in making money, so they have people convinced that they need these pills in order to turn a profit.

I don't doubt for a moment that they want to make money. But making money and providing a valuable product aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Having high blood pressure is understood as being a potential problem. What's wrong with them making money off of something that's minimizing my risks in life?

The thing is, I'm ultra critical of ridiculous ideas, but I try to be sympathetic toward people who have them. After all, I'm not immune from having them myself. I feel pretty dumb that I stopped taking my medication because of some pretty groundless objections.

The doctor got me back on it (Lisinopril) and after a slight adjustment, my blood pressure is back in the healthy zone. I seemed to have a bit of a reaction to it at first. At least, it might have been. Let's just say that I was having some digestion issues. However, that's all over now, and I seem to have adjusted to the medication (assuming that it was the problem in the first place).

I'm definitely not going to stop taking it unless my doctor tells me to. I feel good about it, and I'm not going to let anybody make me second guess something that benefits my health. (And I'm also getting to the point where I find it hard to take anybody seriously who sincerely uses the term "Big Pharma".)

The Theory of Everything and Atheist Tropes

My wife and I saw The Theory of Everything last week, and I didn't get a chance until just now to sit down and write about it. Since it's been gestating in my mind, this is going to be more than just a straight-up review, as one of my concerns going into this film was how they were going to handle the atheism of Stephen Hawking (the subject matter of this biographical picture, for those who don't know what this is about).

Why would I be concerned about this? After all, it's just one aspect of the man's life, and some would argue that it's not even the most interesting part. It probably wouldn't be too wild of an assumption to say that even Hawking himself wouldn't find that aspect of his life to be all that important. He's not an atheist activist. If anything, he's an activist for science and reason, and this has led him to conclude that there simply is no need for a God's existence. So, what's the big deal?

I think it's important for the same reason that Johnny Cash's Christianity was important in his biopic, Walk the Line. It's not all there is to the man, but he came from a spiritual household, and music and spirituality were intertwined for him. Also, one of the best parts in that movie is when his record company tells him that he shouldn't perform in a prison because his audience wouldn't like it, since they're mostly Christians. Cash's response to any Christians who think that he should stay away from sinner? "Then they're not Christians!" It's there, and it would have been a disservice to completely neglect Cash's religious feelings. I can't speak for everybody, but I certainly didn't feel that the movie was preachy.

I didn't want some sort of anti-religious screed for this movie, but I didn't want the movie to skip over what his conclusions were when it came to the God question. (I skip the phrase "how he feels" because Hawking himself has said, and the line is in the movie, that it "doesn't matter" how he "feels".) I feel that it's important for a few reasons:

1. The man is easily the most, if not one of the most, prominent scientists, and his area of expertise is
how the universe came to be. You'll hear a lot of talk from certain religious quarters that somehow the idea of God is bolstered by science, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Hawking understands, and is able to explain, how the universe came to be, and if he doesn't see the need for a creator, then you need to do more than dismiss him with a wave of the hand if you're to challenge him on that - especially from a scientific perspective.

2. As most people know, he has ALS, which had doctors predicting that he'd be dead within a few years of the diagnosis. (That diagnosis was in the early 1960s.) A common thing that atheists hear is that people find their belief in God when they are suffering hardships and need Him the most. (Which never strikes me as a good argument - it's essentially an admission that the idea becomes more appealing when you're in a state that makes you less rational.) Call me crazy, but being confined to a wheelchair and having a computer do your talking for you strikes me as a pretty severe hardship. Yet the man doesn't complain, and I even remember an interview where he described himself as being "lucky" because so many people with ALS have it even worse than he does. The fact that he has this disease and remains so positive is a pretty clear demonstration that there isn't a "need" for a God even psychologically speaking.

3. Atheists make up a small percentage of the population, and we don't get to see many of us portrayed in a positive light in the media. Oftentimes, in fiction, atheists are seen as being "broken" somehow, and the resolution of the story is that they eventually find their way back to belief in God. You get that, or you get an atheist who's cynical and generally pretty surly. The worst though is the one who claims to be a "skeptic" even though he/she lives in a world where the supernatural is consistently meeting the burden of proof. Of course, with Hawking, we're not dealing with fiction, but considering the way Hollywood usually handles atheists, I was worried that even though they'd present his views correctly, there would be some sort of undercutting of his ideas in the last few minutes.

So...how did it do? Turns out that my concerns were unfounded. Not only is it a terrific film in general, but it dealt with Hawking's atheism exactly how I would have hoped. It's a part of his overall story. Even better, the religious people in his life, like his wife, were treated with respect. The movie made both of their feelings known without taking sides. Maybe some would argue that point, as the movie ends with Hawking giving his answer to what his life philosophy is since he doesn't believe in a God. However, the movie is primarily about him, and his philosophy might be atheistic, but it certainly isn't anti-theistic. I get the feeling that Hawking doesn't give the God question all that much thought, but he'd be willing to if given some compelling evidence.

Even more important than presenting atheism accurately, the movie showed what the scientific view of the world really is. There are a lot of strawmen versions of that in the media, as people with a scientific mindset are usually shown as being closed-minded and practically worship science as a religion, rejecting out of hand anything that doesn't fit into their paradigm. What this type of representation misunderstands is that an evidence based worldview allows for the possibility for pretty much anything, provided that there's evidence for it. If anything, it's the most open-minded point of view. One of my favorite parts was when Hawking explained how once he tried to prove his black hole theory, his next mission was to set about DISproving it! This is the key thing that's different from a religious-based versus a reason-based worldview. You don't go looking for things that prove you right, as that's nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias. The point is to accept the idea that you can be wrong about anything, and, as Hawking said, how you "feel" about what's true is irrelevant.

I realize that I'm really narrowing in on one slight aspect of the film, but there are plenty of professional reviews out there if you want that sort of a thing. As I stated already, the movie is fantastic. I found myself tearing up pretty regularly throughout. If I wasn't getting misty-eyed because of his hardships, I was getting emotional because of his triumphs. He's definitely an inspiration for a number of reasons, and I'm glad to add Stephen Hawking to my list of personal heroes.

I do think that the film should have ended with his rap battle against Einstein though:

Should you buy organic?

Organic nightshade berries!

I have a lot of organic products in my house. I drink organic soy milk. I have some organic beef that's thawing in my fridge right now for tomorrow's burritos. I'm sure that some of the veggies in my freezer are organic as well. Why do I buy organic?

Because it's healthier and GMOs are going to kill us. Also, something about Monsanto and chemtrails.

Because I happen to like how some of those products taste, and in some instances, there wasn't really much choice when I was at the store. I like to go to Costco, and they're really big on the organic foods and "No GMO" labeling. That beef was slightly more expensive than the non-organic stuff, but I like the fact that they avoid antibiotics, and the way it's packaged is really convenient. With the other kind, I'd have to use several freezer bags after breaking it up into meal-sized portions.

I'll admit it though - I pretty much avoid the organic section at the produce section of my local grocery store. I have no problem buying the non-organic bananas, strawberries, lettuce, etc. I have no problem with them for a couple of reasons, the first being that the organic stuff tends to cost a lot more. The second is that there simply is no reason to believe that organic food is healthier for you.

What? How can I possibly say that? Everybody knows that organic food is healthier! Haven't we been told this many times before?

Indeed, we have been told. And who's telling us? The organic food industry, which rakes in over 30 billion dollars in the United States alone. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that organic companies are bad simply because they're making money. I just wish that people would treat them with the same skepticism that they treat the rest of the food industry (which deserves plenty of skepticism).

Who else is telling us? Bloggers with no scientific qualifications. This, of course, includes me. However, here's the difference between me and the Food Babe - I don't want you to believe me. I would hope that people who know me and/or have read my other blog posts would at least give me the benefit of the doubt and trust that I probably have good reason for my opinions on this. However, I think that your best bet would be to look at what the actual science says on this issue. Also, I'm not trying to sell you anything. (Although I'm waiting for a really big "shill" check from Monsanto to be be delivered in the mail.)

From my understanding, there is no evidence that organic food is any healthier than conventional food. Yeah, you'll find some stuff out there that will tell you otherwise. In fact, I was about to cancel this very post when I did some reading and came across what looked like a study that proved me wrong. However, with a little more digging, it fell apart. (It was on the Huffington Post, which props up pseudoscience from the likes of Deepak Chopra, so I suppose that I shouldn't have been too surprised.) I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I will have a lot of skepticism if somebody sends me a source from somebody who's selling organic products and/or isn't actually representing a scientific organization.

A lot of people will tell you that the use of pesticides is a concern. Well, I hate to break it to you, but organic farming uses pesticides as well. How do you think they keep the bugs from eating into their products? Harsh language? It's not that I think that you should be worried about the pesticides in organic farming, but to think that it's somehow safer than the pesticides used in conventional farming is false. Organics use natural pesticides, whereas conventional uses synthetics. "Ah! That's the thing! Natural is better! Right?" If you think that, then I would suggest that you're making the naturalistic fallacy. There are plenty of natural things that will kill you faster than any synthetic product.

I also don't understand how organic farming is necessarily better for the environment. I understand that some of the techniques are better for the soil, but almost by definition organic farming is less efficient than conventional farming. Why is it better for the environment to use more land?

So, to answer the question that my blog title asks: Should you buy organic? Sure. Why not? But don't buy it because you're scared to do otherwise.

Now, go read an article from Christie Wilcox, who has a PhD in cell and molecular biology and writes for Scientific American's blog. In other words, she probably knows what she's talking about better than random bloggers like me.

I'm flip-flopping again on GMO labeling

Sometimes I make a 180 when it comes to how I feel about things. In rarer cases, I make a 360. In this case, I think that I've made a 540.

When it comes to mandatory labeling laws for GMOs, I've gone from for it to against it to moderately for it to moderately against it back to totally against it.

I was originally for it because, I mean hey, what's wrong with transparency? Then I was against it when I read up on California's Prop 37, and there seemed to be too many loopholes to make it an effective law in the first place. Then I was for it when my left-leaning, anti-corporate, anti-government friends shamed me into being for it. Then I became ambivalent when I gave it some thought and realized that if we're talking honest labels, it's far more complicated than what these laws call for, and you can read about that here.

The talking point that gets thrown at me when I say that I'm against labeling is: "We have a right to know what's in our food!" It's tough to argue that. What, do you think that we DON'T have the right to know what's in our food? Do you think that corporations should be able to just feed us whatever?

I completely agree with the notion that we have a right to be informed about our food. However, I don't think that labeling laws are about informing people. At least, none of the ones that I've seen proposed are about that. I feel the way I do for a number of reasons:

1. Products that don't contain GMOs are eager to advertise themselves as such. Do you want to avoid GMOs? Easy enough. Buy only organic. Hope you can afford it.

2. Proponents of labeling are eager to point out the companies that are against it: Pepsi, Monsanto (owned and operated by Satan himself, apparently), Dupont, etc. The argument goes that these companies are obviously trying to hide the truth about what's in their food. After all, they only care about making money.

This argument seems logical enough, but who's funding the other side? The Organic Consumers Fund and various companies that sell organic food. Also, you have Joseph Mercola's company, and one can write an entire blog on their anti-scientific stances. Are these all charities? Why does nobody question their motivations? I totally understand, and even sympathize with questioning the motivations of the big companies, but the organic industry raked in over 60 billion dollars last year. 

Here's the thing, if I had absolute knowledge and knew 100% for certain that GMOs were safe, and you put me in charge of Monsanto, I'd STILL be against labeling. Why? Because people freak out about it and will be less likely to buy stuff if it's labeled such even if there's no good reason to be afraid of it. Likewise, if I was put in charge of an organic food company, I'd be for it, because I know that it would mean more sales for me.

In other words, the profit motivation argument is a wash, and it doesn't get to the heart of the real issue. The real issue is what the science says about the safety of GMOs, and that leads me to...

3. GMOs are safe. Get over it. You think that they haven't been tested? How about a study of 100 BILLION animals? How about the fact that they've been in our food supply since the 90s and no adverse effects have been discovered? How about 600+ safety assessments? How about the fact that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that they're safe? 

Why is it that fruits and vegetables that have been modified using traditional breeding practices (which is just about everything) don't need to be labeled? The results are far more random and thousands of genes are altered. With GMOs, the results are precise and only involve a few genes. Plus, unlike traditional breeding, they're tested. But somehow doing something in a lab is scary because people took what was going on in Gremlins 2 literally.

I'm willing to change my mind again (and again), but as far as I can tell, labeling laws are not about providing information; they're about spreading unnecessary fear. GMOs don't require a warning label, and anybody who's so inclined to learn about the process can do so. Plus, they're easy to avoid if you want. I'm not totally against the idea of labeling in general, and I'm certainly not against informing the public, but the current labeling laws that have been proposed are all founded on scientific illiteracy and science phobia.

GMOs and the scientific consensus

Let's make one thing clear before I continue.

Truth is not determined by popular consensus - even when it's a popular consensus of experts in the particular subject.

However, I think that at least, when there is scientific consensus about a particular issue, the layperson should be given pause when his or her opinions contradict that consensus. At the very least, it should be the starting point for further research.

For instance, even though I'm not a biologist, I'm fairly good at explaining the basics of evolution. This is what I try and use when discussing the subject with somebody who doesn't believe it. While I am not averse to bringing up the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, I never make a statement like: "It's true because most scientists believe it!" I just like to bring it up because if a person thinks that it's not true, even if they defeat me in a debate, they might have a tougher time with the people who really know what they're talking about.

I'm not quite as good at explaining climate change, so I have to rely on the point about scientific consensus a little bit more. Of course, you get people who dismiss that consensus, claiming that those who endorse the idea of anthropogenic climate change are only doing so because they have some sort of financial interest at stake. 'Cause, you know, those who deny it have nothing to gain by us continuing to use fossil fuels. Yup. No money in that.

As somebody who tends to get labled as a "liberal", I think it's safe to say that many of my like-minded friends are with me up to this point. However, there is a lot of concern about GMOs, and much of it seems to be coming from the same side as people who normally agree with me on the previous two issues.

I'm probably even worse at explaining GMOs - although I know that we're not really talking about Genetically Modified Organisms, as nothing we eat hasn't been modified in some way. What we're really talking about is Genetically Engineered Organisms. In other words, the crops have been altered in a lab rather than through artificial selection.

I have been suspicious about the concerns over GMOs for quite a long time. It began years ago when somebody tried to get me to sign a petition to ban them. As little as I know now, I knew even less back then, but the nature of his argument only made me question what he was saying. He had absolutely no specific examples of harm when it came to what GMOs can possibly do to us.

I've heard concerns from some of my more sober-minded friends that while they're not saying that GMOs are dangerous, they think that there needs to be more testing. They're also pretty big on labeling. (As of now, I'm in favor of labeling, but I'm skeptical as to what good that would really do.) In other words, they express to me that GMOs are still a big question mark.

If you find yourself in either the "GMOs are killing us!" or "We need to know more about GMOs!" camp, I would ask you to consider the following:

Does scientific consensus matter to you? If it doesn't matter on the first two things, then you're at least consistent if you disregard the consensus when it comes to GMOs. However, if they're enough to make you want to at least research the issue further and question your views, then you might want to consider the following:

The consensus of independent scientific organizations (not scientists who work for Monsanto or some other "evil" corporation) is that GMOs are safe.

There's a great article by Richard Green on the Skepti-Forum about the consensus and how one can avoid sources that are misleading about the issue. Some of the associations that have made statements on the safety of GMOs include the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization. The article (and this graphic) gives the specific statements that have been made.

Of course, this doesn't mean that GMOs definitely ARE safe. However, if you're going to say that they're not, or that they need more testing, and you're really interested in the truth, then you should look into what these organizations are saying and figure out why they're wrong.

As of now, I don't know if GMOs are safe or not. However, I'm humble enough to say that the people who know more than me seem to think that they are. At the very least, I should consider what they have to say before I consider the opinion of some random website that's selling snake oil.

Who were our cousins?

When I went to the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History, there was a display on Neanderthal Man. The display revealed that the Neanderthals not only buried their dead but even marked the graves with flowers. This is kind of a big deal because it shows that they had at least some degree of ritual to their lives, and it also indicates that they may have had a primitive sort of religion/belief in the afterlife. It's tough to say, of course, because they're not around anymore (haven't been for about 28,0000 years now) to tell us one way or the other.

What's fascinating about Neanderthals is that they're human beings but not quite human beings like us. They're different enough to be considered a different species, but they're close enough to have bred with us, as has been revealed by studying our DNA. (From what I understand, this is more likely if you're of European ancestry.)

I don't know enough about this subject to have anything profound or original to say about it, but it's a topic that fascinates me. I suppose it fills me with questions, and it gives me a more profound sense of just who I am and what it means to be a human being in the first place. Most religions teach that we were specially created by a deity. The evidence shows us that there was nothing special about our origin, but that doesn't mean there's nothing special about us now.

I have to wonder though, what if the Neanderthals or another one of our cousins from the human family tree became the dominant species on the planet? If Neanderthals had a proto-religion, would they have gone on to develop ones that are more complex like the ones that we have today? Would they create art, poetry, and music? Some of our cousins, like homo erectus, seemed to have the right equipment to allow them so speak at least. Could they have done the rest?

And if our cousins could have done all of this, would they have done it better? Thinking that evolution is about the survival of "the best" is to misunderstand it. It's about the one that's best able to survive. Art and music aren't things that we need to survive (although they help to make life worth living). What if our fellow homos could make art that would put ours to shame? And what about government? Would they have done a better job of it than we did? Would they have figured out that slavery was wrong? Would they have equality of the sexes? I'm sure somebody more studied in this could give some educated guesses, but I'm not sure if anybody can answer for sure.

These thoughts have obviously entered the head of Jeff Smith, the writer/artist best known for Bone and Rasl, as his new series, Tuki, features a homo erectus protagonist, and there's a homo habilus as one of the supporting characters. Obviously, with a work like this, there's a decent amount of conjecture going on, but Smith takes the time to explain some of the science behind the story (like why he thinks it's reasonable to have Tuki speak).  It debuted as an online comic, but the first issue has hit the stands. If you like comics and this concept intrigues you, you should check it out.

I like it because it deals with something that already interests me. When I think about our distant cousins who have long since vanished from the Earth, I have a lot of feelings going on in me at once. I feel curious to know more. I feel sad that we may never know as much as I'd like. I feel appreciative that it was my particular branch that managed to survive and bring me to this point. Overall, I have a greater sense of respect for who I am and what my place is in this world.

Talking to evolution deniers

Conversations with evolution deniers are often frustrating but can sometimes be interesting in a psychological sense. The one thing that never fails in my experience is that eventually the denier will reveal a lack of understanding of what evolution is. I certainly know that when I didn't accept evolution, much of that was due to the fact that I didn't have a clue as to what it actually was.

With some deniers, you can catch this right away when they say something like, "Why are there still monkeys?" These are usually the people who haven't even bothered to do the most basic Google search on the topic and don't care to learn.

There are the smarter deniers though, and it often takes a while until they reveal some sort of gap in their understanding. One time I had somebody bring up "Junk DNA" and how biologists believed that we had a lot of info in our genetic structure that didn't do anything, and it turned out that they were wrong. The person was right on this point, but how does that affect the theory of evolution one way or the other? (Hint: it doesn't.)

The thing is, you can give a denier a comprehensive overview, using the most basic non-technical language, of what evolution is, and if they have a motivation (usually religious) to not believe in it, then it'll be like trying to convince the ocean to hold still. I'm not really bothering with that anymore, and instead I've changed my tactic. Oftentimes, it's best just to ask questions. You won't get immediate results, but if you can get them to start thinking a bit, then if there is any chance that they'll come around, that's the way it'll happen.

I like to ask the following questions:

What is it that you understand better about biology than the overwhelming majority of the world's biologists? Ultimately, that is what the denier is saying. A typical response will go along the lines of how scientists have been wrong in the past (often with examples from more than a hundred years ago). That's true, of course, and consensus doesn't equal truth. But I'm not going to drink pond water because scientists have been wrong in the past, so, you know, they could be wrong about the bacteria and parasites that are in it. In other words, that answer is a non-answer, and I point that out. Ultimately, they cannot give a reason as to why they understand things better than those whose life's work revolves around a basic understanding of evolution (which is what modern biology is).

What part of evolution don't you believe? You might get answers, but they'll only prompt more questions. It might also be good to break it down a bit and ask them which point is the one where they just don't accept:

• Do you not believe that genetic information is passed down from parent to offspring?
• Do you not believe in mutations? (If not, then what about blue eyes or people born with extra fingers? (I had a cat once who had two extra toes on each foot and an extra toe-less claw on each of her front paws.)
• Do you not believe that some mutations can be advantageous and enable a species to better survive?
• Do you not believe that these mutations would be more likely to be passed on?
• Do you not believe that these advantageous traits would alter a population over time?
• Do you not believe that these altered populations would bring forth a new species given enough time? (Because we have direct, observable evidence of this happening, so you'd have to show these to be hoaxes.)

With your more-informed deniers, they will often give you all of the above. However, they will often stop and say, 'Yeah, you get new species of lizards, but they're still lizards!"

From there, you can ask the following:

• Do you not believe that, given enough time and enough changes, you'd expect to see some radical changes? (Like reptiles bringing forth mammals? You'd expect to see things like the platypus if evolution were true, wouldn't you?)
• Do you not believe that domesticated cats and tigers share a common ancestor? (They share 95.6% of their DNA, and they're both cats.)
• Do you not believe that human beings and chimpanzees and bonobos share a common ancestor? (We share almost 99% of our DNA - more than house cats and lions.) 

If they have no trouble accepting all of these, then proceed to stop the conversation and talk about the weather, as this person accepts evolution. If they accept the first two but not the third one, then ask them how that can be when we have more in common with our ape cousins than cats and tigers? (And the difference between lions and tigers is about the same as tigers and house cats.)

And while we're discussing DNA, why do they reject the consensus that the field of genetics proves evolution? And what about transitional fossils? (Some of them will flat out tell you that there are no transitional fossils, which is a bold-faced lie. If faced with this, suggest that they look up horse or whale evolution and then try saying that again.) And why the heck do I have a tail bone but no tail?

The best that you can really hope for is to get the person thinking. If you point out enough stuff, and they're genuinely intellectually curious, then you'll at least give them something to think about and you'll be pointing them in the right direction. The unfortunate thing with this issue though is that people don't approach it the same way as they would other issues. For some people, accepting evolution would mean tossing away an important part of their identity. This does not need to be the case though, as plenty of religious people accept evolution. 

It's too bad, because the more I learn about it, the more amazing I think that the world is.