a hypothetical conversation between a biblical creationist and an evolutionist

[Youtellme]

Let’s listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a biblical creationist (C) and an evolutionist (E) as they discuss some recent scientific news headlines:
E: Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse evolution?
C: Are you referring to the finding of coat color change in beach mice?
E: Yes, isn’t it a wonderful example of evolution in action?
C: No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.
E: Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Don’t you think that’s a good example of evolution occurring right before our eyes?
C: No, you seem to be confusing the terms “evolution” and “natural selection.”
E: But natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.
C: Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They're both idiots, hypothetically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

C: Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.

That's right. Natural selection doesn't add new "information" to the genome; that's what random mutation does.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's right. Natural selection doesn't add new "information" to the genome; that's what random mutation does.

Oops, the proper usage of terms gets 'em again.

 

[painted wolf]

Neither one of these people seem to understand evolutionary biology.

If that hypothetical "evolutionist" is a hypothetical professional biologist, they should be ashamed.

wa:do

 

[David M]

Let’s listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a biblical creationist (C) and an evolutionist (E) as they discuss some recent scientific news headlines:
E: Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse evolution?
C: Are you referring to the finding of coat color change in beach mice?
E: Yes, isn’t it a wonderful example of evolution in action?
C: No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.
E: Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Don’t you think that’s a good example of evolution occurring right before our eyes?
C: No, you seem to be confusing the terms “evolution” and “natural selection.”
E: The only person confusing evolution and natural selection is you. But natural selection is one of the primary mechanism that drives evolution. Evolution is more than just Natural Selection.
C: Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.
E. Random Mutation is what can add information to the genome, no scientist claims that natural selection does. The only person confusing evolution and natural selection is you.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Youtellme]

Fixed it for you.

:clap

 

[Nepenthe]

I usually stop reading anything when I hit the phrase "molecules-to-man evolution". That phrase is the 47th chromosome in any sentence.

 

[Meow Mix]

Because bacteria have always had the information needed to consume nylon... locked away for billions of years somehow without being destroyed by genetic drift and mutations, just waiting for mankind to start synthesizing nylon :sarcastic

That intelligent designer, he's a clever one...

 

[Krok]

I usually stop reading anything when I hit the phrase "molecules-to-man evolution". That phrase is the 47th chromosome in any sentence.

:bow: I doubt that many creationists would get it, however. (Mind if I use this?)

 

[painted wolf]

Because bacteria have always had the information needed to consume nylon... locked away for billions of years somehow without being destroyed by genetic drift and mutations, just waiting for mankind to start synthesizing nylon :sarcastic

That intelligent designer, he's a clever one...

Yes, this is why all living things have identical genomes. "just in case"

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

:bow: I doubt that many creationists would get it, however. (Mind if I use this?)

it's all yours.

 

[Krok]

it's all yours.

Thanks!

 

[Krok]

Sorry, still can't resist this thread, although I know it's old. Just had to tell this hypothetical creationist one quick thing.

Let’s listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a biblical creationist (C) and an evolutionist (E) as they discuss some recent scientific news headlines:

E: Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse evolution?
C: Are you referring to the finding of coat color change in beach mice?
E: Yes, isn’t it a wonderful example of evolution in action?
C: No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.

Ever seen what Charles Darwin’s' book, published in 1859, was called? I'll give you a hint: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Don't believe me? Creationists want to debate the Theory of Evolution, but don't even know the most basic part; the title of the book that originally described the theory. I wish they would read something about Evolution before they start arguing against it. The way they do it at the moment looks so retarded.

 

[ellenjanuary]

That's all you, right there.

This hypothetical evolutionist ain't got jack to say 'bout no biology. I got a Bible.

Doesn't that Sun Tzu got something to say about fighting the enemy in enemy land?