Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 8
 [ 142 posts ] 
Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is.
Author Message
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is.

Nothing new of a topic, but I got myself into a discussion with a creationist about what evolution is (he seems not willing to learn, literally) but there are a few problems, because this discussion is on youtube and my comments are often not visible to him (probably being marked as spam). So I prepared a new venue for this discussion, but first an introduction of how this discussion got started.
when I went on youtube and watched this video:

[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg[/Youtube]

I saw this comment:

Looks circumstantial, speculative and negligent to me. A whale arm looks like a hippo arm - so what? Perhaps God made both and perhaps we don't know why. And why did the publisher neglect to mention that the University of Michigan "whale evolution" exhibit was falsified? Missing bones were artificially created to fit the evolutionary doctrine? When considering embryos - you should mention at the outset that Haeckels embryo drawings are the subject - essentially - of a scientific fraud debate. And the mere fact that some embryos look similar doesn't mean anything. Finally, on the issue of whales evolving from land animals it should be noted - at least by those who have a critical mind - that one scientist (Berlinski) counted up 50,000 different anatomical and bio-molecular changes necessary for a land mammal to become a whale, and each of which would require massive genetic mutations and would theoretically result in at least 50,000 transitional forms. But there's none. And most mutations are lethal, making the survivability of 50,000 mutations impossible.
Drawing pictures, and creating a neat video is not science. It's propaganda.


This comment was wrong on so many ways. Yeah, I know, youtube isn't a nice platform for having an intellectual conversation (wether you have it with a creationist or not), but I couldn't resist correcting the errors being made. Each sentence contained at least 1 error. To summarize my response:
1. The comment begins with the common creationist knee jerk reaction against a piece of evidence that they don't like:
"That doesn't prove anything"
And Latter with the creationist explanation that explains nothing:
"Goddidit"
The two common thoughtless responses of creationist apologetics summarized by Aronra in the 14th FFOC part 2.
What he is talking about is that whales have the same finger bones in their flippers as hippos do. Of course, this homology makes no sense from a designers perspective. A designer could have made whale with the same flippers that a shark has, but why a whale with the same tetrapod four limbs? Of course, evolution explains this (whales are descendants of tetrapods, thus they have a terrestrial ancestry), creationism has to ignore it, which is what the person making this comment did.
2. About the fraud made by the University of Michigan. The claim was entirely based on the claims of creation 'scientist' Carl Werner. The fraud turned out to be at worst a mistake, but not a fraud. When Pakicetus was first discovered, they only had an incomplete skull, but the skull still showed clear Cetacean traits (ear-bone unique to whales). This is the reason why Pakicetus was and is considered an early relative of whales. The fraud accusation comes from an early artistic drawing of Pakicetus where artists (not scientists) added flippers, blowhole and the rest of the animal. Even thought this is not from scientists, the drawing was perfectly reasonable at that time when there was not enough evidence to indicate how it looked like, but still, the scientist at that time never mentioned anything about the rest of the skeleton. Now we know that Pakicetus (still having whale traits) was more terrestrial with hooves, which is concordant with genetic evidence that points toward the conclusion that the closest living relatives of whales are event-toed ungulates. Thus scientist corrected the mistakes of artists and never conducted a fraud, but creationist cannot distinguish the work of artist and that of scientists. More on this can be found here:
http://marmotism.blogspot.nl/2015/01/whale-evolution-fraud-and-creationist.html
3. When Embryos comes up, creationist will cry the name "Haeckel" over and over again, but the video he responded never used Haeckel 's drawings but instead photographs of actual embryos. How can you mistake photographs with drawings? :facepalm:
Well, creationists can apparently.
And once again "That doesn't mean anything" phrase. Actually it does mean something. Whales develop, among other things, four limb buds during embryonic development, but only two will develop in limbs and the hind limb buds won't. This clearly is a vestige that whales have inherited from their tetrapod (four limbed) ancestry.
4. And he calls Berlinski a critical mind and a scientist (which he isn't - he is a philosopher). But never mind that, he actually believes that Berlinski counted up 50.000 changes that are needed to change a cow into a whale (whales didn't evolve from cows, misunderstanding of evolution - but what can you expect from a philosopher who works for DI). If you would count the changes with a rate of 1 every 10 seconds, it would take you 5 (24 hour non stop) days to count 50.000 total changes and Berlinski apparently didn't kept a list of the changes he counted up. Any reasonable person doesn't and won't believe this BSC (Bull Shit claim).
5. And finally "most mutations are lethal". Wrong, most mutations are completely neutral or have such a negligible effect they are not noticeable. They have to be since every human has on average more then 100 mutations, yet each of us survive 100 lethal mutations. And there are beneficial mutations identified.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

After allot of discussion with this guy, (often repeating the same claim over and over again), I finally said this:
And I would like not to quibble over someone quote mining scientists in a book. I will put a challenge too you.

I will prove to your satisfaction that evolution is a fact.
It won't turn into a game where I present evidence and you just keep dismissing every point.
We will do this in an interactive discussion where you participate. I will ask questions and you will have to answer it and vise versa. This is important: Repeatedly avoiding questions and points will mean you fail the challenge

We will do this in one step at a time to make the replies short. And this process goes like this:
The first part will be an education about what the terms like evolution, transitional species and theory means. In order to communicate we must first both know what the terms we are both using means. And giving evidence for evolution to someone who doesn't understand what evolution is, is pointless. Sometimes when a new term comes up, we will have give a solid definition to make sure we are on the same page.
The second part will be laying out the evidence for evolution. one by one. I will ask which one you accept and which ones you don't I will have to provide scientific peer reviewed literature (not books that aren't peer reviewed).

Are you willing to start this challenge. 


To which he responded with:
Ok. Commence at your leisure.


So the first point to is to inform him what evolution is. So I explained him the definition with this:
evolution = an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’:
Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”.


He doesn't and won't except this. He still thinks that Evolution =
The origin of life and biodiversity all came from natural processes - without God
It doesn't matter what process it is (spontaneous generation or varying allele frequencies), if it is godless it is evolution

And it apparently doesn't matter how many sources, wether from universities or from textbooks teaching this subject, I posted that explains what evolution is. No matter what, this guy refuses to learn what evolution for reasons like
" I characterize the Berkely.edu definition as more of a legalistic trap - not a definition of the word."

Berkeley.edu is as many people should be familiar with is an open access course of evolution by the Berkeley university, but he doesn't want to listen to how scientists studying this subject define what evolution is nor how people arguing in favor of evolution define their terms, he wants to believe the straw man version of it because the only way to discredit evolution is to argue against a misrepresentation of it.
I challenge him to give me a scientific source that defines it that way, but we all know he won't, the best thing he could do is site AiG or other creationist websites that create straw man versions of evolution.

So this was an introduction, I may give a summary of our conversation that we had (this was just the tip of the ice berg), and maybe he will come over here to discuss the topic further. He is welcome to continue the discussion either by accepting the definition which is how all evolutionists define it (their case, their terms) or embarrass himself by keep denying what it means.
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:11 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3148Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

Nesslig20 wrote:


Nesslig20 wrote:More on this can be found here:
http://marmotism.blogspot.nl/2015/01/wh ... onist.html


I love that blog.

Just an FYI: There is a debate subsection on this forum, wherein you and your creationist friend will be the only two that can respond. Throwing that out there incase you both wish to have an uninterrupted discussion.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:47 pm
YIM WWW
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 4985Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

I've deleted your facsimile post in the science and maths sub-forum. Apologies that it isn't all that clear that we actively moderate the first of a new user's posts (it keeps the forum clean from spammers).

Of course, you're more than welcome to invite the user here :)


...and also, welcome to LoR, Nesslig20!
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:15 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 593Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

I think the 1st word in the title should be " Educate" ? Might even need to add a preposition or two.
Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:34 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Just an FYI: There is a debate subsection on this forum, wherein you and your creationist friend will be the only two that can respond. Throwing that out there incase you both wish to have an uninterrupted discussion.


Thanks for the tip. I'm new here so I'm not familiar with this. I don't know for example how you can put the youtube video like you did on this forum. Can you explain to me?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:10 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

Prolescum wrote:I've deleted your facsimile post in the science and maths sub-forum. Apologies that it isn't all that clear that we actively moderate the first of a new user's posts (it keeps the forum clean from spammers).

Of course, you're more than welcome to invite the user here :)


...and also, welcome to LoR, Nesslig20!


Thanks, I heard of this forum after I watched the video from Aronra "OFNF vs the facts" in which he summarized the interaction on LoR.
And I understand that you will moderate my comments, although I'm not sure what part you deleted.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:16 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 4985Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

Hi.

We don't moderate/edit comments, we only hold back the first post of new users until we read them to keep the site clear of spammers. That's all.

I only deleted the double post (word for word the same as your OP above) from another sub-forum.

Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


ETA:

We have a primer for using the various BBCodes (such as embedding YouTube videos) here. :D
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:23 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

thenexttodie wrote:I think the 1st word in the title should be " Educate" ? Might even need to add a preposition or two.



Yeah, I know. Damn auto correct. Also English isn't my native language so go easy on me, please.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:30 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3148Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

Nesslig20 wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Just an FYI: There is a debate subsection on this forum, wherein you and your creationist friend will be the only two that can respond. Throwing that out there incase you both wish to have an uninterrupted discussion.


Thanks for the tip. I'm new here so I'm not familiar with this. I don't know for example how you can put the youtube video like you did on this forum. Can you explain to me?


Easy. YouTube URLs look like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg . In order to embed it on this forum you have to remove the last half (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg) and place that between the [Youtube][/Youtube]. It should look like this:

[youtube]lIEoO5KdPvg[/youtube]


That results in this:



Nesslig20 wrote:And I understand that you will moderate my comments, although I'm not sure what part you deleted.


This thread was posted on this forum twice. Prolescum just removed one of them because there is no point in having two threads

Proescum already pointed you to the tips and tricks section.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:33 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Education a creationist what evolution is.

Prolescum wrote:Hi.

We don't moderate/edit comments, we only hold back the first post of new users until we read them to keep the site clear of spammers. That's all.

I only deleted the double post (word for word the same as your OP above) from another sub-forum.

Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


ETA:

We have a primer for using the various BBCodes (such as embedding YouTube videos) here. :D


Oh, alright, sorry of the misunderstanding.
And sorry for the double post.
Also thanks for the primer on BBCodes.

Also thanks to He_Who_Is_Nobody for the reply.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:37 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 4985Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

No problem, it's likely (as in definitely) my fault ;)
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:39 pm
CollecemallPosts: 320Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

I think I've seen this movie before. Can we at least play creationist bingo or something?
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:12 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3148Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Collecemall wrote:I think I've seen this movie before. Can we at least play creationist bingo or something?


Wait, you do not play creationist bingo with every creationist? I thought that was a standing rule.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:05 am
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1052Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

evolution = an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’:
Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”.




The problem with that definition is that all creationists would agree and accept what you defined as evolution.

Accepting what you call evolution doesn’t imply that complex organs and systems came from simpler ancestors, nor it implies that all organisms share a common ancestor

The theory of evolution is a complex theory with many implications one can accept some of the implications and reject other implications and still be logically consistent.

In a general sense creationists reject universal common ancestry and the idea that complex organisms, systems organs etc. came from simpler ancestors as a consequence of random genetic changes and natural selection. So any debate should be focused on those particular issues where creationists and evolutionists are in clear disagreement.

Since both creationists and evolutionists agree that diversity increases as a consequence of “descent with inherent [genetic] modification’ there is no point on debating on that issue.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:47 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1164Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:Accepting what you call evolution doesn’t imply that complex organs and systems came from simpler ancestors, nor it implies that all organisms share a common ancestor


Can you name two organisms that are unrelated?
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:59 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

I've invited the guy to discuss it here. If he wants, we can go toward the debate subsection as he_who_is_nobody advised for having a one on one conversation. However, if our discussion would take place in the debate subsection, it wouldn't be a debate, more like an education/challenge. Although he hasn't answered yet. In the mean time, I can summarize our conversation that we had on youtube here, just for keeping track about what questions where answered and what statements where addressed.
After he agreed to my challenge (see top comment) I said this:

Alright, the first term to cover is what evolution is (since that is the subject)
Here is the definition:
The word, “evolution” simply means “change over time.” Thus it can have different meanings in different contexts. Like certain astro physicists refer to stellar evolution as how stars change over time, but that process isn't the same as how life changes over time. In the context that is relevant here, the word 'evolution' refers strictly to an aspect of biology.
In that context, evolution =
an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’:
Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”.

For more clarity, Since evolution is descent with inherent modification, evolution isn't an explanation for how life originated (nor the universe)
In order to have descent you must have ancestors, thus evolution can only occur when reproductive systems began to inherit genetic changes from their ancestors. In other words, evolution happens after life is already present and is an explanation for how life diversifies not how it originated. (thus abiogenesis is not a part of evolution)
Any more questions for clarification before we go to the next term? This must be as clear as possible to you.
Please keep your questions short and few (preferable just 1 at a time) After I have clarified that we can keep on to any other question you may have about this term. 


The responses I got after this:
Well we are off to a great start because I totally reject everything you wrote. Congratulations. But no offense intended, so don't be pissed. I'm not interested in micro-evolution. I'll debate macro-evolution. I want you to prove that a bacteria evolved into a fish, and that same bacteria also evolved into a pine tree. I am not the least bit interested in a billy-goat with short legs, or a fly with 4 wings, or a bird with a big beak. And I already know that some people are short and some people are tall, some black and some white, and some fat and some skinny. So I don't need to know about allele frequency, or adaptation. You have to show that a fish evolved into a land animal like a cow - and then it went back into the sea and turned into a whale. THAT is what I expect from evolution.
Here is a definition for you:
Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.


One correction that must be made, evolution doesn't suggest that bacteria evolved into fish and pine trees. There are three domains of life (bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes), Fish and Pine trees evolved from eukaryotes and eukaryotes didn't evolve from bacteria. The correction is adequately explained in the beginning of the 10th FFOC by AronRa.

After pressing him that in order for you to know what micro/macro evolution is you have to know what evolution is.
Evolution = (see definition)
Micro evolution = Evolution that occurs within a species / evolution that results in new varieties within a species.
Macro evolution = Evolution that occurs across species / evolution that results in the emergence of new species, i.e speciation.

He responded:
t appears to me that you have several different definitions. I cannot proceed until a single definition is settled. I read what appeared to be your so-called "definition" and it was in my opinion a rambling hodge-podge. Whatever your definition is, I expect it to explain (among other things) that tree-of-life featured in the video - and that tree shows a little amaeba evolving into plants, dinosaurs, and monkeys. And for my own personal amusement - I expect your definition to explain how sea creatures evolved into land creatures and then reversed and evolved back into whales.
I invite you to send me a definition of which I approve.


It appears I had to simplify the definition since it appears to him as rambling hodge lodge. His requirement:
"Whatever your definition is, I expect it to explain (among other things) that tree-of-life featured in the video - and that tree shows a little amaeba evolving into plants, dinosaurs, and monkeys. And for my own personal amusement - I expect your definition to explain how sea creatures evolved into land creatures and then reversed and evolved back into whales."
Is actually in the definition I gave "Evolution = an explanation for Biodiversity (which includes all the things he mentioned).
He also demands a definition for which he would approve, but it doesn't work that way. If he doesn't want to accept the correct definition and only wants to accept a wrong one then it would be impossible to demonstrate evolution to him, which is of course his intent.

Next up:
I may compare your definition to other definitions, perhaps even to Darwin's definition. After all, the mere fact that you claim that's how evolution is defined foes not mean that is the only definition, nor does it mean that your definition is correct.


However, if you would go to Darwin's definition, he doesn't use the word evolution until the last word of his book and the only way he described the process is by the same phrase I used in the definition I provided: "Descent with modification"
Which is why he didn't come back with Darwin's definition (because it agrees with the definition I gave).

I haven't gone back to your initial definition. I did consider a definition on my drive home though.
Evolution is a single word for the entire explanation by which a single original cell diversified into all life forms by the exclusive means of natural selection. I'll get to your other stuff later. 


Which is wrong again. It is true that evolution explains biodiversity (single original cell diversified into all life forms), which again is included in my definition, but evolution isn't driven exclusively by natural selection. There are other mechanisms like genetic drift.
Thus I proposed a more simpler defintion, fragmented to make it easier for him:
1. Evolution is a single word for the explanation by which life forms diversifies
2. ["through 'Descent with inherent modification'"]
3. which means changes in allele frequencies
4. within reproductive populations;
5. this process expand biodiversity
6. when these changes make genetically-isolated, descendant groups more distinct from their ancestors or cousins)
7. this process is driven by several known mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, artificial selection, etc.


His response:
I'm inclined to keep #1 and the "natural selection" portion of #7 and drop numbers 2-6 (and drop the artificial selection processes implied in your #7). The theory is supposed to explain how an original cell diversified into all the current life forms.
The only mechanism is natural selection.

Repeating the same mistake. Evolution is an explanation for biodiversity and natural selection isn't the only mechanism that guides evolution. After explaining him that I can't drop all those things from the definition:
Well Mr. Nesslig, I'd like to thank you for your efforts thus far. No offense.
Let me share a little story:
Once upon a time there was a cell, and that cell turned into all the other cells on earth today.
The end.
How did it happen? Creationists say "God did it". Intelligent Design theorists say "Something intelligent did it". And evolutionists say "Natural causes".
Your job is to explain to me how 1 cell turned into all the other cells - without God.
Whether God did it, or whether something intelligent did it, or whether it was natural causes - the result of all those cells is "genetic drift" and "allele frequencies" and "descent" and "diversification" - that is undisputed on all sides.
The dispute is whether the cause is "nature" or " God". 


Now we get to the First FFOC
"Evolution = atheistic (nature without god)"

Note that at the end he said: "Whether God did it, or whether something intelligent did it, or whether it was natural causes - the result of all those cells is "genetic drift" and "allele frequencies" and "descent" and "diversification" - that is undisputed on all sides.
The dispute is whether the cause is "nature" or " God"."


Translation: He basically admitted that wether evolution happened or not is undisputed (of course, he wouldn't accept those processes as evolution), he wants me to prove that God wasn't involved, the same trick Kent Hovind used in his challenge. Wether god wasn't involved or not is not relevant to wether evolution happens.

Later asked him several times wether he accepted that evolution explained the diversity of cats:
Image
Hasn't answered it. (Although it could be he didn't noticed it because around now some of my comments weren't visible to him)

I gave him multiple times the definition from Berkeley.edu. to which he said:
ll review the Berkley.edu site for a explanation of evolution.
However, I'm not impressed by adaptation, or variation. I view those claims as insignificant deceptive distractions - like a magicians ploy before pulling a rabbit from a hat.
Berkeley site lead me to the following so-called "definition" -
It appears to me prima facie to be another evolutionist fraud because Berkeley has switched terms from "micro-evolution and macro-evolution" to "small-scale evolution and large-scale evolution".


Then I explained to him that no, it isn't a fraud, that's how all evolutionists define evolution (he can't give an example where scientists define evolution with something else) and two that adaptation and
variation, which is promoted by gene flow, sex and mutations all are aspects of evolution.

He wasn't to impressed by that:
So creatures have sex and genes flow – that does not prove that a single original creature evolved into all life today. It does not even show that a creature has evolved. All it shows is sex and gene flow. I already know that creatures have sex and genes flow.
The link you sent me to is adaptation – not “long term adaptation”. Furthermore, adaptation does not prove that a single creature evolved into all life. Adaptation is merely adaptation – it is not evolution.


Sex and gene flow doesn't prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor, but it does prove that evolution happens since evolution is a matter of population genetics.
I specified that "long term adaptation" since adaptation can mean adapting your behavior to changes in seasons like animals that hibernate. This is "short term adaptation", but isn't (directly) the result of evolution, because evolution happens on the population level over generations, not in a single individual. Long term adaptation is for example the ones that are inherited like the appearance of insect that look like leaves. These long term adaptations are the result of natural selection acting on a population over generations selecting the individuals with the favorable traits, like leave mimicry.

He also asked me these questions:
1. But since you are making the claim (about allele frequency) then please identify how you calculate the frequency.
Show me your mathematical procedure.
2. Kindly show me what population was split into sub-groups that became different species.
3. Unless you have genetic mutations creating new operational genetic code for a new species - then the theory of evolution is just a fraud.


I answered:
1. This is pretty simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency
For example you have a population A that has 100 individuals and 4 of them have allele X.
Thus the frequency of allele X is:
4 / 100 x 100 = 4%
Let's say that allele X gives the organisms an advantage thus over several generations the population grew to 120 individuals and now 12 individuals of 120 have allele X.
Now the frequency of allele X is:
12 / 120 x 100 = 10%
I learned this during math class in high school.

2. Three examples of new species:
- A 28 year study of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches.
- Speciation of surface and subterranean populations in London.
- And evolution of six species of mice on an island.

3. Three examples of new operational genetic code from duplications and mutations
- Snake venom
- Antifreeze in antarctic ice fish that evolved from a duplication of a digestive pancreatic protein.
duplication of a digestive pancreatic protein
- also one that occurred right in the lab of Dr. Lenksi - evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in E.coli

His reaction:
Quotes from the author:
Two observations suggest that even where molestus and pipiens populations are in contact gene flow is limited or, conceivably, absent.
The genetic data only give a hint of gene flow
This combination of factors can explain why gene flow is negligible or absent between the two forms in the populations that were studied.
My comments:
This article is about mosquitoes that were studied and did NOT show gene flow, which contradicts previous studies claiming the opposite.
This lady caught mice and claims that evolution “may” have occurred. But “may” is not an absolutely certain claim. “ discovered what may be an example of "rapid evolution."
She claims that diversity “seems” to have occurred. But what “seems” to be is not a certainty. “The diversity of fused chromosomes seems to have occurred in just 500 years”
This article is hogwash because "it seems to me that evolution is hogwash and the diversity of life was created by God".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23640422
This is an abstract – not an article. The abstract claims that gene duplication is – essentially – critical as a basis for evolution. However, there is no proof whether an alleged duplication in angiosperm history was natural or designed. Perhaps this species has always been polyploid. The abstract appears to be conjecture.
BTW - you know why duplication is critical? Because evolutionists are beginning to realize that mutations cannot create operation genetic code sufficient to cause the diversity of life. In other words, because the genetic basis of evolution is failing.
Quote from the article:
The importance of gene duplication to the evolution of species-specific traits is relatively unknown, but duplications resulting in species-specific adaptations have been demonstrated for some genes [20, 21]
My comment: In other words – they have no idea how gene duplication results in a new species.
Quote from the article:
The unexpectedly high group-I ωPS may be the result of enzyme adaptation to new prey preference after speciation.
My comment: In other words, it “may be” but it “may not be”. It is just a guess. If you believe in guesses – then you are not a scientist.
Quote from the article:
These data also demonstrate that increases in genomic complexity gained through gene duplications has lead to an increase in phenotypic complexity (venom composition) and likely the ability of venomous snakes to adapt to new prey types.
My comment: In other words, this article is NOT about evolution of a new species – it is about adaptation. I see NO indication that a “new species” evolved, and NO indication that a “new gene” resulted from mutation. This is simply gene duplication and adaptation – but that is not evolution.
I’ve already read about the Antarctic ice fish – a fascinating story. It is alleged that 2 different mutations caused a fish to lose it’s globin gene function, and the other to create cell debris that acted as an anti-freeze. It is my understanding that NEITHER mutation resulted in “new genetic information”. Rather, the mutations resulted in a loss of genetic information. Furthermore, some authors explained that the ice fish is only adapted to ice cold water, thus it’s fitness for the future is greatly reduced. So, this is not evolution – this is a de-volution and a temporary adaptation that will ultimately result in extinction.
I’ve already read about Lenski’s E.Coli and the alleged new metabolism. However, this was debunked. The E. Coli have always had a citrate digestion metabolism, but normally the mechanism is shut-off by a repressor gene. In Lenski’s case, a mutation occurred to the repressor gene – and the result was a loss of function of the repressor gene. Without repression, the pre-existing citrate mechanism began to function. However, this is NOT a new species of bacteria – so there is NO evolution. And there is NO new genetic information, rather, there is a loss of genetic information. This is de-volution.
So Mr. Neslig, thank you for the links. Thank you for the challenge. However, I see nothing in the articles persuasive of evolution. It looks to me like bad science desperately grasping at anything to defend a theory that is false.


First on the mosquitos.
"This article is about mosquitoes that were studied and did NOT show gene flow, which contradicts previous studies claiming the opposite."
:facepalm: No gene flow between populations is what promotes the formation of new species also known as reproductive isolation.
Island mice:
"This lady caught mice and claims that evolution “may” have occurred. But “may” is not an absolutely certain claim. “ discovered what may be an example of "rapid evolution.""
I once again get reminded of my favorite Darwin quote (see my signature) that perfectly describes the attitude of creationist against science.
Snake venom:
" In other words – they have no idea how gene duplication results in a new species."
The article wants about speciation, it was about new operational genetic code from duplication events.
The ice fish:
"It is alleged that 2 different mutations caused a fish to lose it’s globin gene function, and the other to create cell debris that acted as an anti-freeze. It is my understanding that NEITHER mutation resulted in “new genetic information”. Rather, the mutations resulted in a loss of genetic information. Furthermore, some authors explained that the ice fish is only adapted to ice cold water, thus it’s fitness for the future is greatly reduced. So, this is not evolution – this is a de-volution and a temporary adaptation that will ultimately result in extinction."
Which is wrong, the protein evolved from a duplicated trypsinogen gene
Image
thus no information was lost to form the AFGP gene. The only thing that got lost was the genes for hemoglobin.

And it is true that the fish won't survive in warm waters, but in subfreezing antarctic sea, it is perfectly adapted. Fitness is determined by the environment.
E.coli:
"I’ve already read about Lenski’s E.Coli and the alleged new metabolism. However, this was debunked. The E. Coli have always had a citrate digestion metabolism, but normally the mechanism is shut-off by a repressor gene. In Lenski’s case, a mutation occurred to the repressor gene – and the result was a loss of function of the repressor gene. Without repression, the pre-existing citrate mechanism began to function. However, this is NOT a new species of bacteria – so there is NO evolution. And there is NO new genetic information, rather, there is a loss of genetic information. This is de-volution."
Again, wrong. E.coli couldn't metabolize citrate when oxygen was present. But now it can. That's the part that is new. And the new genetic information that enabled this ability came from a duplication mutation (linking CitT genes on rnk promoter) thus once again no information was lost.
Image

Next comment of the guy:
At this point, after all the research I've done into evolution, including courses in biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, calculus, physics, mycology, phycology, botany, neuro anatomy, anatomy and physiology, and microbial research, and neuropharmacological research, and I was on the dean's list, bla bla bla bla bla. After all that - I say evolution is hogwash. In my opinion creation science and intelligent design describe the facts better.


:roll: Huffing, puffing and pointless posturing. He brags about all the research he has done, but doesn't bother to put up his research. I'm the only one who has even presented some research.
And that last sentence:
"In my opinion creation science and intelligent design describe the facts better."
:lol: That one cracked me up.
I wonder what would describe these facts better. Intelligent design (creationists Trojan horse) or evolution?
1. Like this
Image
The flatfish isn't so happy about his design.
And yes we have the fossils, we win.
Image
2. Or what about this:

OUCH my back, damn you darwin!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:12 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

leroy wrote:
evolution = an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’:
Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Or more simply, it is how life forms diversify via “descent with modification”.


The problem with that definition is that all creationists would agree and accept what you defined as evolution.

Accepting what you call evolution doesn’t imply that complex organs and systems came from simpler ancestors, nor it implies that all organisms share a common ancestor

The theory of evolution is a complex theory with many implications one can accept some of the implications and reject other implications and still be logically consistent.

In a general sense creationists reject universal common ancestry and the idea that complex organisms, systems organs etc. came from simpler ancestors as a consequence of random genetic changes and natural selection. So any debate should be focused on those particular issues where creationists and evolutionists are in clear disagreement.

Since both creationists and evolutionists agree that diversity increases as a consequence of “descent with inherent [genetic] modification’ there is no point on debating on that issue.


If creationists accept that then creationists accept evolution, but they won't call it evolution.
They say it is just adaptation - not evolution
Or they admit that it is evolution but just micro evolution within a "kind".

Accepting that evolution happens doesn't mean you accept that complex organs and systems came from simpler ancestors, nor it implies that all organisms share a common ancestor - granted.
However, it does mean you accept the process that explains biodiversity
(including complex organs and systems as well as the evolution of all life from a common ancestor)
Analogy: Accepting that matter attracts matter (gravity) doesn't mean you accept that planets orbit the sun. (FlatEarthers accept gravity, although they don't call it gravity, just like creationist won't use the word evolution, but they do accept the process that the definition describes). But it does mean you accept the process that explains planetary motions.

If there is no point in debating that and we both agree that evolution happens then the fact that evolution happens is a fact. We can go further from that and give the evidence for that all life on earth really is related like phylogeny that humans are classified as:
Hominoids (apes)
Simians (monkeys)
Primates
Mammals
Amniotes
Tetrapods
Sarcopterygii (lobe finned fish)
Euteleostomi / Osteichthyes (bony fish)
Gnathostomes
Vertebrates
Craniates
Chordates
Deuterostomes
Bilaterians
Metazoans (animals)
Eukaryotes

Which is indicated by both comparative morphology and homology in genetics, which is essentially the same as a paternity test but on a much larger scale.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:20 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3148Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

It is amazing that it seems the new strategy for creationists is to present a straw man of evolution, reject your corrections, and insist that you argue for the straw man they erected. It actuallly says a lot about their position.

Random YouTube Creationist wrote:In my opinion creation science and intelligent design describe the facts better.


Hillarious (s)he would write this after making such a fuss that none of your sources used absolute language. It is almost as if creationists cannot sense irony.

Beyond that, you should turn the tables on this creationist. Ask for evidence for intelligent design creationism. Remember, there is not a dichotomy between evolution and creationism. If someone disproved evolution tomorrow, that would not leave the door open for intelligent design creationism. Thus, negative evidence for evolution does not equate to positive evidence for intelligent design creationism. Intelligent design creationism needs its own facts and evidence to stand on.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:00 pm
YIM WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2935Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

Hey

Welcome to the forums :)
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:23 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Educating a creationist about what evolution actually is

he_who_is_nobody wrote:It is amazing that it seems the new strategy for creationists is to present a straw man of evolution, reject your corrections, and insist that you argue for the straw man they erected. It actuallly says a lot about their position.

Yeah, although I don't know wether the guy is dishonest or not. It could be that like many creationists he has been deceived into believing that evolutionists say that "life cam from rocks" or "A kind of thing gave birth to something of a completely different kind". Although based on his fierce rejection of the definition I presented (with citation and all) I think either he knows what the right definition is or he doesn't want to find out and keep believing that evolutionists believe the straw man version of evolution.
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Random YouTube Creationist wrote:In my opinion creation science and intelligent design describe the facts better.

Hillarious (s)he would write this after making such a fuss that none of your sources used absolute language. It is almost as if creationists cannot sense irony.

Yes, I didn't notice that he also used "uncertain (not absolute) language", something he accused the authors of the scientific papers of.
Based on the youtube profile photo (which is a bald guy with glasses and an american flag on the background), the creationists is a male.
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Beyond that, you should turn the tables on this creationist. Ask for evidence for intelligent design creationism. Remember, there is not a dichotomy between evolution and creationism. If someone disproved evolution tomorrow, that would not leave the door open for intelligent design creationism. Thus, negative evidence for evolution does not equate to positive evidence for intelligent design creationism. Intelligent design creationism needs its own facts and evidence to stand on.

I can do that, but the challenge was that I would demonstrate evolution to him so if I asked him for his evidence of ID/creationism (the same thing), he would accuse me of changing the subject in which case he would be right.
That's why instead of doing that I gave two pieces of evidence that simultaneously goes against intelligent design and is concordant with evolution.
- The ridiculous asymmetry of the flatfish (for which we have transitional fossils for)
- And the stupid design of our S-shaped back bone, resulting in back pain (our bodies aren't well designed for bipedalism).

If a designer actually designed these things, the designer was drunk, high or both.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:55 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 8
 [ 142 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests