Thread: How do I respond to this?

I am debating a creationist in my Biology class, and I am stumped on how to answer his response clearly.

Evolution isn't my strongpoint so I am hoping someone can enlighten me on what he's getting at and if he's wrong. (currently debating if Evolution is observable)

He says:

Ryan, what Joy was saying was that the big bang she believes in was the proverbial "bang" that may or may not have happened when God created the universe, she does not believe that God used the big bang, at least from what I see. As for the observability of evolution or not, we can observe (for example) that a wolf that has a gene that gives it bigger ears or whatever for better hearing/hunting will naturally do better than the wolves with poorer hearing. Therefore, the wolves with bigger ears should have increasingly larger number.

However, it is still a wolf. This is micro evolution. We can observe it. Where it goes into unobservable is where we have never seen a lizard evolve into a bird or vice versa(which by the way, is ridiculous, the bones of a reptile are solid whereas a birds are hollow for flight, also the scales to feathers thing is also messed up, the whole structure makes it impossible). Wolves to poodles to dingos to saint bernards to dachshunds, they are all still dogs and have not truly evolved from one species to another (macro evolution). As you said about dinosaurs, we can both see that they existed, you say somehow one species changed to another through natural selection, I say that God made them with the ability to adapt INSIDE the species.

People have tried to breed an animal into another animal, essentially speeding up evolution artificially. In every instance, they only got so far, then the DNA effectively wouldn't go any further, it just stopped. They tried to keep pushing the mutations but it wouldn't work. Another thing, any mutation results in a loss of genetic information, so you could breed a wolf into a poodle eventually, over a long period of time, but you could never breed a poodle BACK into a wolf; any adaptation/mutation is losing information.



Please keep it simple, I want to learn and educate at the same time.

Oh yeah, this is a very common, and wrong, claim by the uninformed:

Originally Posted by silents429

any adaptation/mutation is losing information

See here for example. Or here.

Originally Posted by silents429

Another thing, any mutation results in a loss of genetic information

You can't debate this point. Because it isn't true.

In truth, you would be better spent educating them on what evolution is rather than what it isn't. Don't try to argue their misconceptions, just correct them. However, I have a feeling that would be a Herculean labor...

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

In truth, you would be better spent educating them on what evolution is rather than what it isn't. Don't try to argue their misconceptions, just correct them. However, I have a feeling that would be a Herculean labor...

Or you can just let them watch Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey​.
Informative, simple and presented with amazing visuals and by a knowledgeable host.

Originally Posted by silents429

I am debating a creationist in my Biology class, and I am stumped on how to answer his response clearly.

I am stumped why creationism is debated during Biology classes. You might as well debate the theory of phlogiston in Chemistry classes.
Anyhow, the arguments in your O.P. are merely regurgitated creationist nonsense that is repeated over and over again, despite myriad refutations.
This link provides you with an exhaustive list of their claims (and refutations). It might come in handy: Index to Creationist Claims

Originally Posted by silents429

I am debating a creationist in my Biology class, and I am stumped on how to answer his response clearly.

Evolution isn't my strongpoint so I am hoping someone can enlighten me on what he's getting at and if he's wrong. (currently debating if Evolution is observable)

He says:

Ryan, what Joy was saying was that the big bang she believes in was the proverbial "bang" that may or may not have happened when God created the universe, she does not believe that God used the big bang, at least from what I see. As for the observability of evolution or not, we can observe (for example) that a wolf that has a gene that gives it bigger ears or whatever for better hearing/hunting will naturally do better than the wolves with poorer hearing. Therefore, the wolves with bigger ears should have increasingly larger number.

However, it is still a wolf. This is micro evolution. We can observe it. Where it goes into unobservable is where we have never seen a lizard evolve into a bird or vice versa(which by the way, is ridiculous, the bones of a reptile are solid whereas a birds are hollow for flight, also the scales to feathers thing is also messed up, the whole structure makes it impossible). Wolves to poodles to dingos to saint bernards to dachshunds, they are all still dogs and have not truly evolved from one species to another (macro evolution). As you said about dinosaurs, we can both see that they existed, you say somehow one species changed to another through natural selection, I say that God made them with the ability to adapt INSIDE the species.

People have tried to breed an animal into another animal, essentially speeding up evolution artificially. In every instance, they only got so far, then the DNA effectively wouldn't go any further, it just stopped. They tried to keep pushing the mutations but it wouldn't work. Another thing, any mutation results in a loss of genetic information, so you could breed a wolf into a poodle eventually, over a long period of time, but you could never breed a poodle BACK into a wolf; any adaptation/mutation is losing information.



Please keep it simple, I want to learn and educate at the same time.

Isn't RamenNoodles also called Ryan? This seems a remarkably similar enquiry to the sort of thing we get from him.

This page is a good resource for two things: (1) explaining that the concept of species is rather arbitrary (like going from red to blue text) and (2) providing examples where we have observed (directly or indirectly) new species being created.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Edit: it also shows that this:

Another thing, any mutation results in a loss of genetic information

is not true.

Originally Posted by silents429

I am debating a creationist in my Biology class, and I am stumped on how to answer his response clearly.

Evolution isn't my strongpoint so I am hoping someone can enlighten me on what he's getting at and if he's wrong. (currently debating if Evolution is observable)

He says:

Ryan, what Joy was saying was that the big bang she believes in was the proverbial "bang" that may or may not have happened when God created the universe, she does not believe that God used the big bang, at least from what I see. As for the observability of evolution or not, we can observe (for example) that a wolf that has a gene that gives it bigger ears or whatever for better hearing/hunting will naturally do better than the wolves with poorer hearing. Therefore, the wolves with bigger ears should have increasingly larger number.

However, it is still a wolf. This is micro evolution. We can observe it. Where it goes into unobservable is where we have never seen a lizard evolve into a bird or vice versa(which by the way, is ridiculous, the bones of a reptile are solid whereas a birds are hollow for flight, also the scales to feathers thing is also messed up, the whole structure makes it impossible). Wolves to poodles to dingos to saint bernards to dachshunds, they are all still dogs and have not truly evolved from one species to another (macro evolution). As you said about dinosaurs, we can both see that they existed, you say somehow one species changed to another through natural selection, I say that God made them with the ability to adapt INSIDE the species.

People have tried to breed an animal into another animal, essentially speeding up evolution artificially. In every instance, they only got so far, then the DNA effectively wouldn't go any further, it just stopped. They tried to keep pushing the mutations but it wouldn't work. Another thing, any mutation results in a loss of genetic information, so you could breed a wolf into a poodle eventually, over a long period of time, but you could never breed a poodle BACK into a wolf; any adaptation/mutation is losing information.



Please keep it simple, I want to learn and educate at the same time.

If you have to debate him on these particular points, dogs might might actually supply you with some good counterpoints.
In the first article, the author makes that point that even if it is possible in vitro to combine egg and sperm of subspecies, the more dissimilar they become in behavior and appearance, the less likely it occurs in nature, long before it becomes genetically impossible. He also refutes the statement that we have never created a new species by breeding. Are Dog Breeds Actually Different Species? - Scientific American

The wiki article, although long and detailed, does describe examples of species hybrids, (Jackal-dog) often with decreased fertility - the transition phase that your opponent says is missing.

It seems to me that creationists like to move the species line when it suits them, by claiming that you can't turn a dinosaur into a bird, and that the identity of, and separation between, species is fixed, and any small changes are "microevolution." But at the same time, claiming that closely related animals that can still sometimes produce fertile offspring are really just the same animal, regardless of their traits.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

There might be better articles than the wiki one. I found it a little hard to follow and short on citations.

I'm actually overwhelmed by the positive responses I got to this, I will read through everything a few times to ensure I understand it.


And someone asked why this was being debated in Biology, well I do my schooling online and our teacher has a website where students can request help or ask questions, and some kids post creationist comments and either me or my teacher debate them on it. Teacher always wins, and this would be the first one for me. (I got 10points for having accurate facts in my first response)

Anyway thank you, and if anyone has anything more to add I will gladly read. ^_^

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

In truth, you would be better spent educating them on what evolution is rather than what it isn't. Don't try to argue their misconceptions, just correct them. However, I have a feeling that would be a Herculean labor...

Or you can just let them watch Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey​.
Informative, simple and presented with amazing visuals and a knowledgeable host.

Aside from the fact that Cosmos has taken a decidedly snarky turn when it comes to refuting claims by creationists (which I feel it should waste its time even addressing), it's true that it is probably a good spring board for people who want to understand the viewpoint of science-minded people. It's not too detailed and it's relatively simple so even a kid could understand it.

Still, asking a creationist to watch Cosmos would probably elicit the same reaction I have when one of them suggests I read the Bible. Probably not happening (although, the OT is a pretty fun read).

Ignor all the nonsense about micro and macro evolution, there is just evolution.

Focus on this: evolution does not depend upon any complicated processes, just upon a few barnyard observations. 1) Like begets like. Cats have kittens, dogs have pups, duck eggs hatch out ducklings, etc. The offspring are like their parents. 2) Observation number one is not a perfect process. Offspring do not always resemble the parents. Freaks happen. 3) Not every animal that is born or hatched successfully reproduces. Many die before they can reproduce. 4) If an inherited characteristic causes an individual to fail to reproduce , that characteristic is not passed on to the next generation. If your grandfather died childless chances are excellent that you will also have no children. Refute even one of these and evolution bites the dust. Fail to refute these and it just does not matter what else you have to say. Evolution stands.

Ask him to prove that creation is even possible. When was the "poofing into existence" of anything scientificly observed? Hint we are still waiting for the first one.

So. Micro and Macro evolution isn't actually a thing? Are they scientific terms, or terms made up by creationist?

I mean Ill ask anything I am unsure of, I read through these once and plan too again in the morning when I respond in the debate.

Micro evolution was more or less invented by creationists as an unavoidable concession to the obvious changes we can observe directly in plant and animal breeding. Even they couldn't deny that.

So they then moved to the position that "micro" evolution that we can see over a few generations is an entirely different thing from "macro" evolution which they contend cannot happen - one species becoming one or more entirely different species.

I think this is largely linked to either
a) their young earth creation beliefs, 6000 years is not enough time in fact for evolution of fish to result in dozens or thousands or millions of non-fish species, or
b) to the quite common failure to grasp large numbers, the immensity of time involved in the evolution of species as well as the occasional abrupt changes in climates promoting a temporarily higher rate of extinction and change in species that do survive those challenges.

Or a strange combination of both. Or pure cussedness.

Originally Posted by adelady

Micro evolution was more or less invented by evolutionists as an unavoidable concession to the obvious changes we can observe directly in plant and animal breeding. Even they couldn't deny that.

So they then moved to the position that "micro" evolution that we can see over a few generations is an entirely different thing from "macro" evolution which they contend cannot happen - one species becoming one or more entirely different species.

I think this is largely linked to either
a) their young earth creation beliefs, 6000 years is not enough time in fact for evolution of fish to result in dozens or thousands or millions of non-fish species, or
b) to the quite common failure to grasp large numbers, the immensity of time involved in the evolution of species as well as the occasional abrupt changes in climates promoting a temporarily higher rate of extinction and change in species that do survive those challenges.

Or a strange combination of both. Or pure cussedness.

Excellent points of course, Adelady.

But I think you are too kind to creationists. They resort to making this artificial distinction for none of the reasons you give, but because they think that (a) the evolution of Man and (b) thepresence of death in the world before Man appeared, conflict with the religious doctrine of the Fall and the consequent redemptive purpose of Christ's mission on Earth.

They then work backwards, to try to pick holes in the theory of evolution, on any pretext whatever. The invented micro/macro distinction is just one of a battery of unrelated bogus ideas they use. Another example is the idiotic notion that evolution somehow violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Or the deeply dishonest concept of Intelligent Design, of course - "irreducible complexity" and all that shit.

Their problem is that, as science education becomes more firmly embedded in the population, they can no longer dismiss it all and have to find pseudo-arguments with a grain of scientific thinking in them, to try to appeal to schoolkids who know a little bit of science and cannot be easily fobbed off.

Mainstream Christianity adopted a more subtle interpretation of Genesis and the Fall a century or more ago, so it is only the biblical fundamentalists (e.g. in the US Bible Belt) that have this problem.

Originally Posted by silents429

So. Micro and Macro evolution isn't actually a thing? Are they scientific terms, or terms made up by creationist?.

When people refer to macroevolution (yes, it's one word) as being change above the species level they don't actually mean one species mutating in to an organism so different from its parents that we need to assign it to a new family. Macroevolution looks at evolution on a grand scale, from the long time scales of the paleontologist and the geologist to the geographic and environmental scales of the ecologist. It studies patterns and trends of speciation, mass extinctions, changes in biodiversity etc. The study of whale evolution and diversification from their artiodactyl ancestors is an example of macroevolution. The extinction of dinosaurs and the subsequent radiation of mammals is another example of what macroevolution studies. The Cambrian explosion is a classic example of what macroevolution studies. Many have argued that macroevolution is just a field of study, not a mechanism or process.

Microevolution tends to focus on the genetics and population genetics of evolution - it studies shifting patterns of allele frequencies within species and speciation etc. It is also more focussed on the mechanics - the molecular mechanisms - of how evolution works. There is also a great deal overlap between the two areas of microevolution and macroevolution.

One of the great debates within evolutionary biology is not whether macroevolution exists, but how macroevolution is related to microevolution. Some think that macroevolution is just the sum of many microevolutionary events - that is, macro is reducible to micro or micro is sufficient to explain macro. Others disagree, and maintain that macroevolution requires new theories (such as species sorting and punctuated equilibria). Questions over the existence of macroevolution are just a creationist misunderstanding or fantasy.

So, yes, macro-e and micro-e is real terminology used by evolutionary biologists and paleontologists and misused by creationists.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Ask him to prove that creation is even possible. When was the "poofing into existence" of anything scientificly observed? Hint we are still waiting for the first one.

hahahaa. Well said.

[QUOTE=exchemist;560428]

Originally Posted by adelady

Micro evolution was more or less invented by evolutionists as an unavoidable concession to the obvious changes we can observe directly in plant and animal breeding. Even they couldn't deny that.

As Zwirko has pointed out this is incorrect. Micro and Macro evolution are terms developed within biology and palaeontology, but usurped on occasion by creationists. A similar error is to claim that the word Darwinism is a creationist invention.

[QUOTE=John Galt;560466]

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by adelady

Micro evolution was more or less invented by evolutionists as an unavoidable concession to the obvious changes we can observe directly in plant and animal breeding. Even they couldn't deny that.

As Zwirko has pointed out this is incorrect. Micro and Macro evolution are terms developed within biology and palaeontology, but usurped on occasion by creationists. A similar error is to claim that the word Darwinism is a creationist invention.

Yes thanks for the correction. Serves me right for playing out of position.

Sometimes i still can not grasp the affinity for people with the belief in a deity, and that if provided with proof of something happening without necessary interference then their brain tilts and stops functioning completely. Even if there was a god up there, can't it be true that the bible was written by a few old guys who didn't even know Jesus personally. Or right, it was. Even some stories in the old testament are presumably older than 6000 years.

Well, lets combine creation with religion. In the beginning, there was only one belief in a deity, probably the god of the sun, the most obvious. This was the "breath of life stage". At all the climates of this religion, like travels, or hardship, lack of rain, the belief of the people began to change. And when a belief occured that best suited ones needs, like a belief that required sacrifice in name of a living man chosen to represent god or a prophet, then the change stopped. As this man, and some of his closest followers around him have created a situation of which his own life has been changed most positively. Only when the man started changing the climate around him too much, (displeased followers) did the religion change because of revolutions, slaughters or just a sway in movement.

If creationists disprove evolution or any major change that changes a species to another one, they also disprove the change of one religion to another one. Because both use similar rules, and both can be scientifically proven. If so, these creationists call themselves muslim, jew, christian, kaballah, and buddhist, egyptian/norse/greek/roman religion fanatic etc, as all these minor changes couldn't have had a big impact at all..

You touch on another failing of creationist arguments. They believe that by disproving evolution - were they able to do so - that would automatically prove creationism. Obviously this is false, but few are ready to admit it - even, it seems, to themselves.

Originally Posted by silents429

He says:


People have tried to breed an animal into another animal, essentially speeding up evolution artificially. In every instance, they only got so far, then the DNA effectively wouldn't go any further, it just stopped. They tried to keep pushing the mutations but it wouldn't work.

Here's an interesting example of recent speciation I came across (there are lots if you need examples) :

The February, 1989 issue of Scientific American ("A Breed Apart.") describes a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that was a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit (commonly called the thorn apple.) About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The species split into two groups that feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. This is an interesting case because the changes in the two groups are related to their different food choice – their development, maturity, and mating becoming synchronized with the different ripening time of one fruit or the other, causing the two groups to become both developmentally and genetically different, and sexually incompatible with one another, despite sharing the same general geographical region.

Originally Posted by silents429

As for the observability of evolution or not, we can observe (for example) that a wolf that has a gene that gives it bigger ears or whatever for better hearing/hunting will naturally do better than the wolves with poorer hearing. Therefore, the wolves with bigger ears should have increasingly larger number.

Just to clarify - big or small ears could either one be selected. Big ears for better hearing. Small ears for saving nutrition requirements (smaller appendages usually consume fewer calories and vitamins and stuff.)

That's a lot of why humans don't have 8 arms and 4 legs. The benefit of additional arms isn't great enough to make it worth having to keep them nourished and carry them around with you all the time.

However, it is still a wolf. This is micro evolution. We can observe it. Where it goes into unobservable is where we have never seen a lizard evolve into a bird or vice versa(which by the way, is ridiculous, the bones of a reptile are solid whereas a birds are hollow for flight, also the scales to feathers thing is also messed up, the whole structure makes it impossible). Wolves to poodles to dingos to saint bernards to dachshunds, they are all still dogs and have not truly evolved from one species to another (macro evolution). As you said about dinosaurs, we can both see that they existed, you say somehow one species changed to another through natural selection, I say that God made them with the ability to adapt INSIDE the species.

People have tried to breed an animal into another animal, essentially speeding up evolution artificially. In every instance, they only got so far, then the DNA effectively wouldn't go any further, it just stopped. They tried to keep pushing the mutations but it wouldn't work. Another thing, any mutation results in a loss of genetic information, so you could breed a wolf into a poodle eventually, over a long period of time, but you could never breed a poodle BACK into a wolf; on.

The point a new species emerges is the point when the breed has diverged so far from its source that it is no longer able to mate with members of the species that it came from.

From then on it will keep diverging.

any adaptation/mutation is losing information.

It's true that it would be losing information if the mutations were entirely random. But remember that evolution is a response to the environment. The environment provides the information to replace the information that is being lost.

By selecting some creatures over others, and doing so consistently, the environment is guiding the randomness, making it less random. Guided randomness isn't truly devoid of information like true randomness is.

The way I like to explain the complexity of life on Earth is to say that life is just a reflection of the complexity of the environment itself. Life is complex because the environment is complex. It has order because the environment has order.

It's not getting new information from nowhere, just manifesting the information that was already there to begin with in a different way.

I didn't respond to day ;-;

My Grandpa had heart surgery, spent time with him.



I'll be perfectly honest, the information I got from this is a bit overwhelming, I am actually worried I might take something out of context, I think it will help if I take his response apart into pieces and respond to each of those hopefully.

But again thank you for the information, much to be learned.

Originally Posted by silents429

I'll be perfectly honest, the information I got from this is a bit overwhelming, I am actually worried I might take something out of context

Be careful; don't make arguments that you are not completely confident with and think you can respond to questions about. He will likely jump on any tiny mistake you make as "proof" that you are completely wrong about everything. Ever!

Good luck. (And I hope your grandpa makes a speedy recovery.)

Pay attention to your family's needs first.

This argument, sadly, will continue regardless of how much effort you put into it or when you're free to do so.

Originally Posted by silents429

I'll be perfectly honest, the information I got from this is a bit overwhelming, I am actually worried I might take something out of context,

Sounds like you now completely understand why some people choose to remain ignorant of real science. It is vast and complex. There are very few simple explanations in science and one understanding often relies upon another.

One tip, if I may; never be afraid to say, "I don't know. I'll get back to you". As someone who has taught students, some questions were outside my knowledge base. The worst thing you can do is force an answer or make something up.

Originally Posted by silents429

I didn't respond to day ;-;

My Grandpa had heart surgery, spent time with him.



I'll be perfectly honest, the information I got from this is a bit overwhelming, I am actually worried I might take something out of context, I think it will help if I take his response apart into pieces and respond to each of those hopefully.

But again thank you for the information, much to be learned.

You don't have to include everything or cover the entire topic of evolution and genetics. Just break it down and organize your information, perhaps something like this:

1) A short, simple text book definition of evolution and how natural selection results in changes.

2) One or two examples of naturally occurring speciation.

3) One or two examples of artificially or experimentally induced speciation.

4) If he pulls the old 'eyeballs and feathers' argument (a few feathers are useless as a wing, half evolved eyeballs wouldn't have worked) you can mention that feathers were useful for other things before flight, such as keeping warm, warming eggs, and repelling water, and there are lots of examples of simpler, primitive eyeballs in zoology, even light sensing cells in microorganisms.

And finally:

5) Complete lack of evidence for Creationism (As Sealeaf said, no evidence for the "poofing of animals into existence by God") vs lots of evidence in the fossil record and current biology for natural selection and evolution.

Good luck and hope your grandfather has a speedy recovery.

3) Not sure how you are going to motivate that.

4) Feathers are not needed in flight, as flying animals occured long before any feather actually sprouted on any animal. Pterodactyls and simple bats don't have feathers. And the old eyeball bullshit has been overthrown a while ago.

[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/*54juLYOTrM7gzNyJXbDWIbAg74LbB4hM2Z7lWi3WHn-G3Rqb8rcjsxAvKkarGaLrLHBj0pe1ID3qg*Jyfp12hnOOFN7O3 Rw/evolutionoftheeye.jpg?width=600&height=283[/IMG]

5) There is evidence for things poofing into existence, namely the bible. However, this book isn't scientifically credible.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

3) Not sure how you are going to motivate that.

Examples of artificially or experimentally induced speciation include experiments with Drosophilia flies or fish breeding or plants, in which a selective force is applied until the progeny are morphologically different and are no longer able to reproduce, either naturally or artificially, with the parent stock. His opponent claimed this never happens.

5) There is evidence for things poofing into existence, namely the bible. However, this book isn't scientifically credible.

Then it's not really what one would call evidence, is it?