Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Evolution

Proving_a_Negative
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:01:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

From my experience, Creationists do not define "macroevolution", "new information" or "kinds".

When they do, the first is invariably defined in a way that is completely inconsistent with evolutionary processes, and all three either conflict with or are contradicted by empirical evidence:

Eg: macro evolution requires animals to turn into a different family (which evolution indicates they can't) or that some major change is required where such a major change cannot be shown to have ever occurred in the past; New information requires some magical injection of a new gene that didn't come from an original copy with modification, which is not actually required for evolution to be true and can be shown to be unnecessary in the formation of new features and functions; or that there is some uniqueness about animals that show they are unrelated, even though there is no level of taxonomy or phylogeny that doesn't indicate that every animal isn't evidently related to every other.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:12:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Something interesting that i have heard is that if you make a family tree (of species) based on genetics and another based on morphology, they line up almost perfectly. This would be expected under evolution.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Serato
Posts: 743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:13:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

It's hard to say how you'd respond to your statements since you've yet to do it. But lend you some assistance, I obviously feel compelled. First, let's assume you're talking about the evolution to life, which ridiculously is stated to come from a rock that through millions and millions of years transformed to ape to man, which according to correctness, can not be based on scientific fact, since that would require observable data that can be tested. Are you sure you're up to this challenge?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:14:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial.

The macroevolution/microevolution distinction is a relatively new piece of creationist pseudoscience, PaN. It employs a misapprehension (real or invented) of two biological studies to confect a difference.

In biology, macroevolution and microevolution are two distinct studies of the same question. The first uses fossils and other long-term records; the second uses genetics. Both cover speciation, but macroevolution runs across clades, while macroevolution also picks up differences within species: it's part of a continuum of evolution.

The pseudoscience comes in the Creationist implication that there's some 'invisible wall' between clades. Biology sees no wall, and in imputing that there is a wall, Creationists are resorting to a rhetorical trick to get you to waste huge amounts of time spelling out in fine detail how a frog becomes a dog, when in fact: a) frogs and dogs may have a common ancestor though one is not the ancestor of another; b) the common ancestor may not be fully identified; c) the order in which the changes occurred may not be known; but d) it doesn't matter if you already know how hair, tails, ears and teeth appear in speciation, and how key organs change function over time.

Since arguing from microevolutionary capacities to macroevolutionary difference tends to meet an axolotl-glaze of idiocy (whether real or feigned), a simpler response is to work backwards, and ask where the 'wall' is between clades, and what might create it genetically.

Must chromosomes always remain the same number or the same length? Must certain genes always remain intact, and located in one spot? Must certain combinations never appear? Must these changes always result in the sterility or death of the individual possessing them? In other words, what microevolutionary principle upholds macroevolutionary distinction?

Creationists have no coherent answer. Made largely in ignorance of biology, the whole argument is a rhetorical trick -- though in mental abuse, much as in cases of child abuse, the abused themselves often become abusers. :p

Alternatively, you can illuminate the flaws in the reasoning itself. Ramshutu did this recently in hilarious Swiftian style, insisting that there was a difference between 'big' asteroids and 'little' asteroids in the Asteroidism is false! thread: [http://www.debate.org...]

I hope that helps.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:15:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

There is not much point in debating with YECs. Their idea of a young earth is as crazy as believing in a flat earth!
Proving_a_Negative
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:21:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 8:15:24 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

There is not much point in debating with YECs. Their idea of a young earth is as crazy as believing in a flat earth!

This is a logical fallacy.
Proving_a_Negative
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 8:30:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is there any solid example of a non debatable living organism (i.e. not a virus) that has evolved out of the bounds of a gene pool? Young earth creationists like to argue that the adaptation is only happening due to certain genetic traits being expressed. The traits that they can express are limited to whats in the gene pool. The closest thing I can come up with is bacteria's resistance to penicillin over the years, but even this is argued to be because of gene expression.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 9:38:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 8:30:42 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
Is there any solid example of a non debatable living organism (i.e. not a virus) that has evolved out of the bounds of a gene pool? Young earth creationists like to argue that the adaptation is only happening due to certain genetic traits being expressed. The traits that they can express are limited to whats in the gene pool. The closest thing I can come up with is bacteria's resistance to penicillin over the years, but even this is argued to be because of gene expression.

Nylon digesting bacteria.

But the argument is a red herring, by the creationists logic the development of lungs explainable by changing expression in sequential stomach development can be thought of as "no new information".
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 9:43:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

Response: Micro evolution in some species is true. But macroevolution, in which a species evolves into another species, is clearly false. There is absolutely no observable evidence for it.
Proving_a_Negative
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 9:47:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 9:38:51 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/24/2015 8:30:42 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
Is there any solid example of a non debatable living organism (i.e. not a virus) that has evolved out of the bounds of a gene pool? Young earth creationists like to argue that the adaptation is only happening due to certain genetic traits being expressed. The traits that they can express are limited to whats in the gene pool. The closest thing I can come up with is bacteria's resistance to penicillin over the years, but even this is argued to be because of gene expression.

Nylon digesting bacteria.

But the argument is a red herring, by the creationists logic the development of lungs explainable by changing expression in sequential stomach development can be thought of as "no new information".

After looking into this for a little, I think this is a perfect example of a mutation that has improved the overall survivability of the organism in that habitat. It clearly wasn't due to different gene expression since they have found a mutation in the genome to cause this. I really like this. Thank you so much.
Proving_a_Negative
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 9:49:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 9:43:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

Response: Micro evolution in some species is true. But macroevolution, in which a species evolves into another species, is clearly false. There is absolutely no observable evidence for it.

How would you explain the nylon eating bacteria? Here is some quick information on it: http://en.wikipedia.org... Please explain why this isn't an example of macroevolution.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 9:53:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 9:47:13 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
At 5/24/2015 9:38:51 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/24/2015 8:30:42 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
Is there any solid example of a non debatable living organism (i.e. not a virus) that has evolved out of the bounds of a gene pool? Young earth creationists like to argue that the adaptation is only happening due to certain genetic traits being expressed. The traits that they can express are limited to whats in the gene pool. The closest thing I can come up with is bacteria's resistance to penicillin over the years, but even this is argued to be because of gene expression.

Nylon digesting bacteria.

But the argument is a red herring, by the creationists logic the development of lungs explainable by changing expression in sequential stomach development can be thought of as "no new information".

After looking into this for a little, I think this is a perfect example of a mutation that has improved the overall survivability of the organism in that habitat. It clearly wasn't due to different gene expression since they have found a mutation in the genome to cause this. I really like this. Thank you so much.

If it helps, I would recommend this video:

http://youtu.be...

before I saw this I really didn't fully appreciate what the nested heirarchy actually was. I did a lot of research afterwards, obviously but it helps really spell it out.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 10:38:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 9:49:30 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
At 5/24/2015 9:43:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

Response: Micro evolution in some species is true. But macroevolution, in which a species evolves into another species, is clearly false. There is absolutely no observable evidence for it.

How would you explain the nylon eating bacteria? Here is some quick information on it: http://en.wikipedia.org... Please explain why this isn't an example of macroevolution.

Response: Because it's not observable evidence of a species evolving into another. So it is not evidence. Proof of physical change requires observation. Not a quote or link or hearsay.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2015 11:42:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/24/2015 10:38:17 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/24/2015 9:49:30 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
At 5/24/2015 9:43:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/24/2015 7:51:01 AM, Proving_a_Negative wrote:
I do accept evolution as scientific fact. I'm just debating with young earth creationists that are arguing that gene expression is only microevolution. They claim there is no evidence for macroevolution which they define as a mutation in the genome of the animal that produces new genetic information which is beneficial. I don't have a good grasp on evolution since I was raised as a young earth creationist. How do I respond to these statements? Thanks for the help.

Response: Micro evolution in some species is true. But macroevolution, in which a species evolves into another species, is clearly false. There is absolutely no observable evidence for it.

How would you explain the nylon eating bacteria? Here is some quick information on it: http://en.wikipedia.org... Please explain why this isn't an example of macroevolution.

Response: Because it's not observable evidence of a species evolving into another. So it is not evidence. Proof of physical change requires observation. Not a quote or link or hearsay.

Science is based on observable, testable evidence.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth