How best to argue against creationists

[Danmac]

I consider it childish to play around with words instead of adressing the real issue.
If that is how you discuss things we need not continue.
Your choice.

If that is a play on words then that might be a good idea on your part.

 

[painted wolf]

Hey Paintedwolf. RE your comment re macro/micro evolution being about the only issue being debated. Isn't this huge? I looked up the net and found some info pasted below. Isn't macroevolution required for all the dating to meld? It appears that without evidence of macroevolution the TOE doesn't have legs to stand on.

I'm sorry to break it to you Newhope... but in science, Micro/macro evolution are not disputed.
It is only in creationist circles that this topic is "controversial", no matter what DIs' opinion pieces say.

The only debates are those in details of the process, not if the process exists. There is plenty of supporting evidence for "macroevolution" (which in Biology is speciation, which even DI agrees with, so they have tried to change the definition of the term).
In all honesty the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution are hardly even mentioned in practical discussions of evolution. They are essentially meaningless.

If you want a good book to learn about why the article you quoted is misguided I would suggest: "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll. He explains the science behind and role of genetics and how small changes in key genes (such as HOX genes) can have profound effects. I found this book exceptionally informative and easy/fun to read.
Amazon.com: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo (9780393327793): Sean B. Carroll: Books

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

If you want a good book to learn about why the article you quoted is misguided I would suggest: "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll. He explains the science behind and role of genetics and how small changes in key genes (such as HOX genes) can have profound effects. I found this book exceptionally informative and easy/fun to read.
Amazon.com: Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo (9780393327793): Sean B. Carroll: Books
wa:do

I agree with you, but just playing as devils advocate, changes in the hox genes are generally not good. There is a reason why chicken and fly hox genes are interchangeable with over 600 million years of separate lineages. Any non-silent mutation is usually lethal in the organism lineage - a fly with a leg on its head is not going to reproduce.

Showing that mutations can have profound (detrimental) effects on organisms is only going to increase creationist faith in YEC and why evilution is wrong, IMO.

 

[newhope101]

First Quote PaintedWolf "Yes, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are still being debated (such as punctuated vs slow emergence of species) ... but there is no scientific debate as to the factual existence of evolution. There is no research to support Intelligent Design or any other aspect of Creationism.
(sorry but opinion pieces do not count as research)

Second Quote PaintedWolf "I'm sorry to break it to you Newhope... but in science, Micro/macro evolution are not disputed.
It is only in creationist circles that this topic is "controversial", no matter what DIs' opinion pieces say.

PaintedWolf...these 2 recent replies of yours above to my post appear to contradict each other. Punctuated vs slow emergence is micro/macro emergence.


My post did not say that these scientists were questioning evolution,and their info was not from creationist sites. The point I was making was just that there is debate within the evolutionist scientific community, and to assert otherwise is not going to assist evolutionists argue against creationists. Like I said earlier it appears that evolutionists may feel threatened ie you acknowledged some debate in one post and then denied there is any debate in another. Why? Debate does not disprove TOE but perhaps some evolutionists are too threatened to acknowledge it.

RedOne77.. I looked up hox genes and found some info..which no doubt, is refuted elsewhere. I found this below. It is from a creationist site. Of course, it doesn't mean much to me other than there is dispute about "How" evolution produced us. Looking up points made on forum is a fun way to learn.

The researchers found that the Ubx gene from a fly completely prevented leg development while the same gene from Artemia, a brine shrimp, only suppressed leg development 15%. They then mutated the Artemia Ubx gene and found that this version was much more effective at blocking leg formation. They postulated that such a mutation probably occurred in the crustaceans that were the ancestors of six-legged insects.3
The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place. Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously. Moreover, where do the wings come from? Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn’t convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly. Since crustaceans don’t have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?
Having the wings themselves is not even enough. Researchers in another study have found that the subcellular location of metabolic enzymes is important for the functional muscle contraction required for flight.4 Indeed, the metabolic enzymes must be in very close proximity with the cytoskeletal proteins that are involved in muscle contraction. If the enzymes are not in the exact location in which they are needed within the cell, the flies cannot fly. This study bears out the fact that ‘the presence of active enzymes in the cell is not sufficient for muscle function; colocalization of the enzymes is required.’ It also ‘…requires a highly organized cellular system.’

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Looking up points made on forum is a fun way to learn.

I had to frubal that line, newhope. I trust that you are sincere in your pursuit of knowledge. We should all be so open.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree with you, but just playing as devils advocate, changes in the hox genes are generally not good. There is a reason why chicken and fly hox genes are interchangeable with over 600 million years of separate lineages. Any non-silent mutation is usually lethal in the organism lineage - a fly with a leg on its head is not going to reproduce.

Showing that mutations can have profound (detrimental) effects on organisms is only going to increase creationist faith in YEC and why evilution is wrong, IMO.

You should read the book. It isn't just detrimental effects... It's simple things as well, like the spots on a butterflies wings... the number of limbs that an arthropod has. By gaining extra copies of limb development genes you can get wonderful variation like this:

Here is how a simple change in HOX can produce digits from fins:

This is another case the Advocates argument falls apart.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Quote PaintedWolf

RedOne77.. I looked up hox genes and found some info..which no doubt, is refuted elsewhere. I found this below. It is from a creationist site. Of course, it doesn't mean much to me other than there is dispute about "How" evolution produced us. Looking up points made on forum is a fun way to learn.

The researchers found that the Ubx gene from a fly completely prevented leg development while the same gene from Artemia, a brine shrimp, only suppressed leg development 15%. They then mutated the Artemia Ubx gene and found that this version was much more effective at blocking leg formation. They postulated that such a mutation probably occurred in the crustaceans that were the ancestors of six-legged insects.3
The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place. Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously. Moreover, where do the wings come from? Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn’t convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly. Since crustaceans don’t have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?
Having the wings themselves is not even enough. Researchers in another study have found that the subcellular location of metabolic enzymes is important for the functional muscle contraction required for flight.4 Indeed, the metabolic enzymes must be in very close proximity with the cytoskeletal proteins that are involved in muscle contraction. If the enzymes are not in the exact location in which they are needed within the cell, the flies cannot fly. This study bears out the fact that ‘the presence of active enzymes in the cell is not sufficient for muscle function; colocalization of the enzymes is required.’ It also ‘…requires a highly organized cellular system.’

Hox Hype

 

[painted wolf]

My post did say that these scientist were questioning evolution, their info was not from creationist sites. The point I was making was just that there is debate within the evolutionist scientific community, and to asert otherwise is not going to assist evolutionists argue against creationists.

Um.. yes, your article was from a creationist source.

The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

This is a classic dishonest creationist tactic... moving the goalposts. It does nothing to refute evolution, it just shows how desperate the creationist position is.

Creationist: Macroevolution can't make a new species
Scientists: Here is an observed evolution of a new species
Creationist: Well... it can't account for how new groups arise
Scientists: Here is how HOX genes can account for the way new groups arise
Creationist: Well it can't do it that way! It has to make all new everything!
Scientists: :bonk:

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

My post did say that these scientist were questioning evolution, their info was not from creationist sites. The point I was making was just that there is debate within the evolutionist scientific community, and to asert otherwise is not going to assist evolutionists argue against creationists.

When creationists talk about debate within science about evolution, they aren't talking about whether or not birds arose from theropod dinosaurs, or a closely related cousin of dinosaurs but still a reptile. They mean that there is a significant proportion of scientists that oppose evolution outright, just like YECs do. So to come back and say 'there is no argument within science' is true in the context of the conversation.

RedOne77.. I looked up hox genes and found some info..which no doubt, is refuted elsewhere. I found this below. It is from a creationist site. Of course, it doesn't mean much to me other than there is dispute about "How" evolution produced us. Looking up points made on forum is a fun way to learn.

I agree, there is much dispute on "how" evolution did X, and looking up things mentioned on the forum is a fun way to learn. :yes:

The researchers found that the Ubx gene from a fly completely prevented leg development while the same gene from Artemia, a brine shrimp, only suppressed leg development 15%. They then mutated the Artemia Ubx gene and found that this version was much more effective at blocking leg formation. They postulated that such a mutation probably occurred in the crustaceans that were the ancestors of six-legged insects.3

The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

Never mind creationists can't say what information is, let alone quantify it for testability. Most organs are simply modified versions of other organs in other animals (just look at the heart, nearly all animals have heart that has been modified over time), and I'm not really sure what new proteins have to do with new organs. There is no reason, as far as I know, that a new protein would necessarily be required for a new organ or would even be beneficial. New proteins are made all the time through mutations in the genes. And new genes can arise via duplication plus mutation. That is essentially how we got our sense of smell.

For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place. Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously. Moreover, where do the wings come from?

Which wings?Studies have shown that a single mutation is responsible for wing development in bats, the prx1 gene. And as PW already said, changes in the HOX genes can produce more legs in an organism.

Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn’t convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly. Since crustaceans don’t have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?

It is all about the order of the DNA with regulatory systems. Change one of those, and you change the way an organism will develop changing its morphology giving you the phenotype X instead of Y.

Having the wings themselves is not even enough. Researchers in another study have found that the subcellular location of metabolic enzymes is important for the functional muscle contraction required for flight.4 Indeed, the metabolic enzymes must be in very close proximity with the cytoskeletal proteins that are involved in muscle contraction. If the enzymes are not in the exact location in which they are needed within the cell, the flies cannot fly. This study bears out the fact that ‘the presence of active enzymes in the cell is not sufficient for muscle function; colocalization of the enzymes is required.’ It also ‘…requires a highly organized cellular system.’

Without looking into this, my initial guess is that this system was already in-place before flies flew, or it co-evolved with the flies as it gradually got better at flying.

 

[newhope101]

Thanks Redone77, I'll try to get my head around the information you posted.

Thanks PaintedWolf..I do admire your knowledge, although at times I appear to lock horns with you.

I wish there was a section where one coul ask questions for clarity about TOE without clogging up threads.

 

[newhope101]

First Quote PaintedWolf "Yes, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are still being debated (such as punctuated vs slow emergence of species) ... but there is no scientific debate as to the factual existence of evolution. There is no research to support Intelligent Design or any other aspect of Creationism.
(sorry but opinion pieces do not count as research)

Second Quote PaintedWolf "I'm sorry to break it to you Newhope... but in science, Micro/macro evolution are not disputed.
It is only in creationist circles that this topic is "controversial", no matter what DIs' opinion pieces say.

PaintedWolf...these 2 recent replies of your above to my post appear to contradict each other. Punctuated vs slow emergence is micro/macro emergence.

So I feel my point is made, there is debate about the 'how',which is the micro/macro debate. I'd suggest 'How' is the biggest part of any scientific theory becoming a "fact".

 

[painted wolf]

PaintedWolf...these 2 recent replies of your above to my post appear to contradict each other. Punctuated vs slow emergence is micro/macro emergence.

NO it is not. Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis that new species develop quickly from parent species when niche space is opened up opportunistically. (like when a previous species goes extinct)
Slow emergence is a hypothesis that new species develop gradually from parent populations through genetic drift and subtle shifts in population ecology.

It has nothing to do with the false dilemma of Micro/Macro.

So I feel my point is made, there is debate about the 'how',which is the micro/macro debate. I'd suggest 'How' is the biggest part of any scientific theory becoming a "fact".

I'm sorry but your point is not made. The "how" debate is nothing to do with the Micro/Macro debate in any way. As someone who has done work on Evolutionary Genetics I can safely say that.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Hey Paintedwolf. RE your comment re macro/micro evolution being about the only issue being debated. Isn't this huge? I looked up the net and found some info pasted below. Isn't macroevolution required for all the dating to meld? It appears that without evidence of macroevolution the TOE doesn't have legs to stand on.

SUMMARY:​

The Scientific Controversy Over Whether
Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution​

© Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101​

When Charles Darwin published​

The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already
known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding, which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene
pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial.
The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named
"macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).

In the 1930s, "neo-Darwinists" proposed that genetic mutations (of which Darwin
was unaware) could solve the problem. Although the vast majority of mutations are
harmful (and thus cannot be favored by natural selection), in rare instances one may
benefit an organism. For example, genetic mutations account for some cases of antibiotic resistance in bacteria; if an organism is in the presence of the antibiotic, such a mutation is beneficial. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. Midway through the twentieth century, some Darwinian geneticists suggested that occasional "macromutations" might produce the large-scale morphological changes needed by Darwin's theory. Unfortunately, all known morphological mutations are harmful, and the larger their effects the more harmful they are. Scientific critics of- 2 -macromutations took to calling this the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. (See Chapter 12 of Bowler's book.)​

There is no debate within the scientific community about whether ToE is correct. There is considerable debate against science itself, which is what the Discovery Institute is.

 

[Autodidact]

PaintedWolf...these 2 recent replies of yours above to my post appear to contradict each other. Punctuated vs slow emergence is micro/macro emergence.

No, it isn't. If you are interested in actually understanding what these terms mean, and what ToE actually is, we would be happy to explain it to you. Are you?

My post did not say that these scientists were questioning evolution,and their info was not from creationist sites.

These people are not Biologists, and there is no more debate within Biology about ToE than there is within astronomy about heliocentrism.

The point I was making was just that there is debate within the evolutionist scientific community, and to assert otherwise is not going to assist evolutionists argue against creationists.

For the third or fourth time, there is a lot of debate about details, developments, specifics, applications. There is no longer any debate about ToE itself, and it would be false to claim there is.

Like I said earlier it appears that evolutionists may feel threatened ie you acknowledged some debate in one post and then denied there is any debate in another. Why? Debate does not disprove TOE but perhaps some evolutionists are too threatened to acknowledge it.

No, there just plain isn't any. This debate was resolved a hundred years ago, and science has on to build on that knowledge.

RedOne77.. I looked up hox genes and found some info..which no doubt, is refuted elsewhere. I found this below. It is from a creationist site. Of course, it doesn't mean much to me other than there is dispute about "How" evolution produced us. Looking up points made on forum is a fun way to learn.

Not from creationist sites, unless you enjoy misinformation.

The researchers found that the Ubx gene from a fly completely prevented leg development while the same gene from Artemia, a brine shrimp, only suppressed leg development 15%. They then mutated the Artemia Ubx gene and found that this version was much more effective at blocking leg formation. They postulated that such a mutation probably occurred in the crustaceans that were the ancestors of six-legged insects.3
The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

Define "information." Why would mutations not result in new "information"?

For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place. Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously. Moreover, where do the wings come from? Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn’t convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly. Since crustaceans don’t have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?

Having the wings themselves is not even enough. Researchers in another study have found that the subcellular location of metabolic enzymes is important for the functional muscle contraction required for flight.4 Indeed, the metabolic enzymes must be in very close proximity with the cytoskeletal proteins that are involved in muscle contraction. If the enzymes are not in the exact location in which they are needed within the cell, the flies cannot fly. This study bears out the fact that ‘the presence of active enzymes in the cell is not sufficient for muscle function; colocalization of the enzymes is required.’ It also ‘…requires a highly organized cellular system.’

Unfortunately you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

First Quote PaintedWolf "Yes, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are still being debated (such as punctuated vs slow emergence of species) ... but there is no scientific debate as to the factual existence of evolution. There is no research to support Intelligent Design or any other aspect of Creationism.
(sorry but opinion pieces do not count as research)

Second Quote PaintedWolf "I'm sorry to break it to you Newhope... but in science, Micro/macro evolution are not disputed.
It is only in creationist circles that this topic is "controversial", no matter what DIs' opinion pieces say.

PaintedWolf...these 2 recent replies of your above to my post appear to contradict each other. Punctuated vs slow emergence is micro/macro emergence.

So I feel my point is made, there is debate about the 'how',which is the micro/macro debate. I'd suggest 'How' is the biggest part of any scientific theory becoming a "fact".

Theories don't become facts; they explain facts.
ToE explains how we get new species. For the last 100 years, there has been virtually unanimous agreement within biology that ToE is correct when it explains HOW we get new species, and HOW they appear so exquisitely adapted to their environments.

There remains, and will always remain, ongoing argument and new discoveries about exactly which species descended from which, what the precise mechanism is, and so forth. This is good, because it is how scientific knowledge progresses: building on existing clearly established knowledge, with new exploration, often accompanied by vigorous debate.

There was once such vigorous debate about ToE. It was resolved over a century ago. It's over. Now Biology can use this clearly established theory as a framework for new discovery and debate.

Unless you're a creationist, and want to go backward and unlearn what we already know.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I wish there was a section where one coul ask questions for clarity about TOE without clogging up threads.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/98851-major-transitions-evolution.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94931-ask-biologist.html

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks PaintedWolf..I do admire your knowledge, although at times I appear to lock horns with you.

Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner!
You are most welcome! Thank you for the compliment.

{quote] I wish there was a section where one coul ask questions for clarity about TOE without clogging up threads. [/quote] Tumbleweed was kind enough to post links above to two of the threads I have for just those sorts of questions.
Major transitions in evolution

Ask a Biologist

wa:do

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

why do we have to repeat this stuff time and time again in all kinds of threads?
Creationism = False
Evolution = True
Discussion in some related thread please.

The topic here is a different one.

 

[David M]

PaintedWolf...these 2 recent replies of yours above to my post appear to contradict each other. Punctuated vs slow emergence is micro/macro emergence.

No its not.

Its a dispute about the ratio and patterns between slow macro and relatively speedy macro evolution. Its not a dispute about whether either exists or that micro/macro exists, its about how quickly these things take place under some conditions and how big a part each has played in the evolution of species.

 

[newhope101]

Woops..just looked up the drosophila experiments on Wiki. I don't know where I got that they were an example of species change. But thanks for pointing it out.

You know it's a real case of the more I learn the more questions there are. From a laymens standpoint, mine anyway, the drosophila experiments just don't fit. I read "With experiments involving crosses between D. pseudoananassae and D. bipectinata, D. pseudoananassae and D. parabipectinata, and D. pseudoananassae and D. malerkotliana it was shown that Y chromosome has a role in hybrid male sterility".

So how come humans mated with neanderthal, both homo, and both are subspecies? Don't the drosophila experiments indicate the homo subspecies shouldn't be able to mate very successfully? Is this why some don't want to hear about the neanderthal genome project info? It's supposed to inform human genome knowledge as were the fruitfly experiments. I actually thought quite differently. I expected that the homo subspecies at any evolutionary point would be able to successfully breed with the subspecies above it and maybe even two or three up the ladder.There are periods where many subspecies cohabitated. Maybe they also mated and mixed.

It appears there is no point at which a species becomes a different species, it's kind of relative. The first 'Homo' subspecies we came from will be related to maybe 'australepithicus' or some other named 'genus'.

Is that how you see it? Surely you have some thought re interspecies mating?

But I'm happy to put it off if you want to explain anything else you think I need to know. Next lesson...