Critique this anti-evolution argument?

[UKBoy1977]

When it gets to the nuts and bolts of genetic mutations I'm a bit out of my depth so I wondered if anyone could respond to the points made in this extract of a post made on a forum I post on. The poster is a biochemist by trade I believe and seems to be an ID supporter from what I can gather.

(the lines I have put in bold are previous comments from other posters)



I am a scientist, I understand evolution very well. I understand that you can carry out evolution in the lab. For example, you take a protein, and you want it to work better at a higher temperature. So you take the gene, you subject it to error-prone PCR (using an enzyme that copies your gene with an error rate of about 1-3%, so a non-proofreading enzyme such as TaqPol), screen millions of genes cloned of which out of 3000kb in size, will have 3-9 bases copied incorrectly by probability, then one or two of those genes out of the several million will survive when you select the protein's activity at a high temperature as they have mutated in a beneficial way for the desired activity - they have been selected reandomly.

Now scientists say look this shows evolution does occur, and can be done in the lab. Yes, but only micro-evolution. I doubt ANY scientist would deny microevolution, as that is simply survival of the fittest based on alterations of the genetic code. Just like sickle-cell anaemia's protective benefits against malaria, just like antibiotic resistant bacteria (note, all these mutations are DELETERIOUS to the organism over wild-type in NORMAL environments - sickle-cell anaemia = shorter life span, antibiotic resistant bacteria are less harmful than their couterparts often, and will not survive over non-resistant bacteria in the abscence of antibiotics), these prove natural selection and micro-evolution.

Now show me where arisal of new species has been observed apart from the rather confusing fossil record (which, over the several millions and millions of years of evolution, the number of fossils found is actually much lower than you would expect hugely!). Show me the ARISAL OF NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. The ONLY way you can show me this is either by frame-shift mutations/crossing over of chromosomal DNA or viral integration of viral DNA into another genome. BOTH scenarios RELY on existing DNA.

Yet we started from no genetic information and now have over 3 billion base pairs of DNA in our genome. This all just came from nothing, pretty much literally. A self-replicating nucleotide structure, of which there is NO evidence, but has been hypothesised to EXPLAIN the origins of life. A mere hypothesis as there is no other explanation. Such a thing cannot and has not been reproduced in the lab, there is NO evidence to my knowledge in the whole natural world of a self-replicating nucleotide structure that doesn't rely on a proteinacious machinery for replication. Even the simplist bacteria have the most incredible complex systems for the replication of DNA.

So yes evolution occurs and there is evidence of this. The fossil record may suggest that species evolve from one to another but the only other evidence really is genetic homology - similarity in genes from one species to the next. But someone could equally argue that a "creator" would make things similarly would they not?!? Why would a creator make a completely different set of proteins and genetic code for a monkey and a human??! Also, why wouldn't a creator, say create a cat, which had the genetic potential to become the many different species of cats we see around us today, from tigers to siamese? This would then appear like evolution in a fossil record too...

Science is about observations and making a hypothesis and testing it. You can test this on micro-evolution but macro-evolution show me where it has been tested and proven - it is a theory, and the worst of all is people accept this self-replicating replicon thing which is meant to be easily accepted yet scoff at people who reject that in favour of a God?? Why is belief in a god so much less scientific than belief in a replicon - which has as LITTLE evidence for its existence as a God?!?! Maybe its because people like Dawkins have alterior motives in that they actually HATE the notion of a god so much that their atheism is a religion to them just as much as a religious person....possibly, I don't know for sure.

If people want to believe in evolution starting the origins of life thats fine, but you have to accept it is a hypothesis that has not been proved by scientific definitions and they should not judge those who do not subscribe to that hypothesis as unless you were there 4 billion years ago and saw it you cannot say you are more sure than someone over there who says God started it years ago...

quote:

What is the evidence to suggest that the universe operates with intent and purpose?

Scientists suggest this all the time now in Neo-Darwinism's views that evolution is focused and not as random as we once thought. So scientists believe it just as much as god-believers IMO!

quote:

Evidence is important like that. There is evidence the universe had a starting point, there is evidence that evolution is true. There is no evidence that any magic people made the universe.

Read above - evidence for micro-evolution is true, there is no evidence which makes macro-evolution a fact. There is some evidence to suggest it may have occurred, and this has been developed by extending micro-evolutionary facts to provide a theory of the origins of life, one I must stress that has NOT been proved.

quote:

Go read a book on evolution. Evolution is not random, natural selection is the opposite of random. Fossils do show transitions between species. Here is a FAQ listing transitional vertebrate fossils


Ironic this - evolution was thought to be random, then along comes problems like the Cambrian explosion, making people have to come up with theories of puncated equilibrium. Thus when you say "evolution is not random" this is said BECAUSE the fossil evidence DOES NOT AGREE WITH A RANDOM EVOLUTION! Thus to an outsider this may appear as though people are picking and choosing what they want to believe about the theory. Again, the non-randomness of evolution has had to be integrated into the theory to explain the fossil record, not from current observable evidence!! When the next bit of evidence comes out that suggests something different, the theory will change - but thats ok because its science!! Religions and people's views and understanding of a "god" aren't allowed to change because its not "science" and when the church tries to adopt things like theistic evolution they are attacked as changing - when scientists do this very thing, but its ok, its science!!! Never crossed their minds that humans get things wrong and take things literally that weren't necessarily meant to be taken this way? No, course not, it just proves religion is wrong!

[godless dave]

There are several problems with his "argument".

I doubt ANY scientist would deny microevolution, as that is simply survival of the fittest based on alterations of the genetic code.

What he's calling "microevolution" is just evolution. It is what gives rise to new species. The fossil record supports this, and it's not nearly as confusing or sparse as he claims.

Show me the ARISAL OF NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. The ONLY way you can show me this is either by frame-shift mutations/crossing over of chromosomal DNA or viral integration of viral DNA into another genome. BOTH scenarios RELY on existing DNA.

"New genetic information" is basically meaningless. If you can pin him down on a definitin of information, you can show that mutations and other variation introduce new information.

Scientists suggest this all the time now in Neo-Darwinism's views that evolution is focused and not as random as we once thought. So scientists believe it just as much as god-believers IMO!


This is completely ludicrous; neo-darwinism says nothing of the kind.

Ironic this - evolution was thought to be random, then along comes problems like the Cambrian explosion, making people have to come up with theories of puncated equilibrium.

This is another flat-out lie.

[Meadmaker]

At it's core is the same argument that is found in almost all ID supportive arguments. It is the argument from ignorance. "We don't know how it happened, so I don't believe it did happen."

At center stage in this argument from ignorance is abiogenesis. How did the first DNA molecule come into existence? How did the first cell form? He's right about one thing. We don't have a clue how it happened. We are completely ignorant of the mechanism by which it got started. There are tiny little bits of evidence which suggest this, that, or the other thing may have played a role but, really, we don't know.

At this point, philosophy and logic kick in. An awful lot of us have observed that the universe appears to operate by something we call "natural law". Particles move in ways that can be described by mathematical equations. Given a current state we can, within limits, predict the next state. Many of us have tried to find examples of cases where something in the universe behaved in a manner not consistent with natural law. There's a fellow named James Randi who will give you a million dollars if you can find such a case. However, no one seems to be able to reproduce such an event.

Of course, there are folklore traditions that say natural law used to be violated on a regular basis by people who walked on water or parted waves or where the male sky god fertilized the female earth god, and made corn grow, but we haven't been able to reproduce these things. Therefore, we conclude that probably, the universe has and will continue to operate by natural law.

Note this belief in natural law isn't confined to atheists. Most Christians and other religious believe it as well, although they allow for occasional exceptions, "miracles" if you will. However, that really doesn't impact evolution. Those miracles are confined to very rare and very significant events, like God sending his Son to die for the weekend or something. Evolution is sort of an ongoing, ordinary, thing that appears to have been plodding along. If miraculous events were included, they were concealed in among the ordinary. For this reason, most Christians accept evolution.

Now, if we accept that the universe functions by natural law, then all the things that the quote from the OP discusses become perfectly reasonable. Yes, scientists speculate about the nature of the original replicator, even though we don't have evidence of its nature. However, we know there had to be one, if the universe operates by natural law. DNA is too complex to have popped into existence by pouring its constituent atoms into a tidepool and getting lucky. Therefore, there had to be some sort of now-missing scaffold that created it. By speculating about possible pre-DNA replicators, scientists get ideas about which ones to pursue.

Summary: It's true that we don't know how a lot of this stuff happened at the beginning, and we know very little about "macro-evolution" either. However, we (religious and nonreligious alike) can see natural law in action, and we can assume then that certain things had to have happened to get where we are today.

One thing that can't be emphasized enough, from a debating standpoint, is that evolution is not incompatible with religion or with Christianity. It is only incompatible with fundamentalism. From a scientific standpoint, it's impossible to say that God wasn't sneaking around with the molecules and making things happen in his own strange and mysterious ways. We just don't have to worry about that as scientists, because it appears that those strange and mysterious ways are totally compatible with ordinary ways that don't involve God at all. The reason this is important is because it gets away from the false dichotomy of God vs. evolution. There is no such dilemma, but you have to convince the Christians et. al. of that before you can even get them to consider the possibility of evolution.

[Reality Check]

Hi UKBoy, A good resource for evolution information is TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/). Their FAQ on the observed evolution of new species is here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html).
The post is a number of typical creation/ID straw man arguements.
There is no such thing as a split between micro- and macro-evolution. Evolution proceeds through small changes and lots of small changes create new species.
There have been many observed speciation events.
Genetic homology does show that ape and human DNA is similiar. IMHO a more important result is that apes and humans share sets of genes that have been inserted into "junk" DNA by retroviruses. The only way that this can happen is if apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Evolution does not address the origin of life - that is another science entirely.

[athon]

At it's core is the same argument that is found in almost all ID supportive arguments. It is the argument from ignorance. "We don't know how it happened, so I don't believe it did happen."

Yup. Add to the mix a smidgen of metaphysical silliness (If God made it this way, it would be identical to what we see for reasons x, w and z) and you have the same old ID game play. The bottom line is anybody could invent a system explaining what we see. Aliens made it, God did it, it's a giant computer simulation...none of which can be falsified. They are also complicated and useless.

At center stage in this argument from ignorance is abiogenesis. How did the first DNA molecule come into existence? How did the first cell form? He's right about one thing. We don't have a clue how it happened.

Actually, that's not quite right. We have a lot of clues, and fairly good idea of how biogenesis might have occured. However, historical scientific events all suffere the same problem. We can't go back and check. So we use observations to develop a model consistent with what we currently see and hold it in confidence until observations arise that falsify it. Even recreating the event today won't confirm how it happened historically - it will only further demonstrate its plausibility.

Understanding biogenesis has come a long way in recent decades.

Summary: It's true that we don't know how a lot of this stuff happened at the beginning, and we know very little about "macro-evolution" either. However, we (religious and nonreligious alike) can see natural law in action, and we can assume then that certain things had to have happened to get where we are today.

I see what you're saying, and partially agree. The difference is, however, that science observes ultimate laws that remain consistent with time and space. Religion observes the whims of a creator, with no endeavour to move beyond these whims and arrive at consistent rules. This means any anomaly can be explained as resulting from the whimsical desires of a personality. True, there have been exceptions such as Newton who tried to understand 'the mind of God' through science. However for the most part, religion simply encourages the mentality we see in the OP - 'I can't explain that, therefore it has no mechanism other than the direct intervention of a deity'.

One thing that can't be emphasized enough, from a debating standpoint, is that evolution is not incompatible with religion or with Christianity. It is only incompatible with fundamentalism. From a scientific standpoint, it's impossible to say that God wasn't sneaking around with the molecules and making things happen in his own strange and mysterious ways. We just don't have to worry about that as scientists, because it appears that those strange and mysterious ways are totally compatible with ordinary ways that don't involve God at all. The reason this is important is because it gets away from the false dichotomy of God vs. evolution. There is no such dilemma, but you have to convince the Christians et. al. of that before you can even get them to consider the possibility of evolution.

Nicely said.

Athon

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Show me the ARISAL OF NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. The ONLY way you can show me this is either by frame-shift mutations/crossing over of chromosomal DNA or viral integration of viral DNA into another genome. BOTH scenarios RELY on existing DNA.
Uh, you asked for new information, but then rejected the idea because there is no new DNA. Any reason old DNA can't incorporate new information?

(Required reference to Schneider's Ev program.)

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Yup. Add to the mix a smidgen of metaphysical silliness (If God made it this way, it would be identical to what we see for reasons x, w and z)

Yeah. Isn't it weird how people project things onto God? If this infinite being existed, wouldn't it be impossible to say how he would do things?


Actually, that's not quite right. We have a lot of clues,


Poor wording on my part. We have clues, but no real knowledge, and not just because we can't confirm it historically. We really don't have any models that explain, in any real sense, the origins of the first cell or of DNA. We're making some progress here and there, but abiogenesis is, in my opinion, one of the great unsolved scientific problems of our age.

[athon]

Yeah. Isn't it weird how people project things onto God? If this infinite being existed, wouldn't it be impossible to say how he would do things?

That's about it. It's amazing how people claim to understand the intentions and ideas of this grand creator on some things, yet claim ignorance on others.

'God made humans and monkeys look similar, simply because it was easier.'
'If it was simplicity he was after, why create such a diverse array of organisms anyway?'
'How am I supposed to know why God does these things?'

:confused:

Poor wording on my part. We have clues, but no real knowledge, and not just because we can't confirm it historically. We really don't have any models that explain, in any real sense, the origins of the first cell or of DNA. We're making some progress here and there, but abiogenesis is, in my opinion, one of the great unsolved scientific problems of our age.

Maybe it does come down to opinion on what constitutes a scientific problem, but I feel it's on the same level as many other things we don't describe as significant problems. Certain sub-atomic particles, for instance, which have never been found but seem to be there.

I feel that in painting a picture for biogenesis, the picture is hazy and out of focus, but we know what the colours are even if the outline is yet to be pencilled in. We're confident in understanding how RNA could develop, how it could form as a polymer and now (until recent years the big sticking point) how it can physically facilitate its own replication. As far as mysteries go, it's nowhere near as intimidating as it was even ten years ago.

Athon

[OMGturt1es]

Now show me where arisal of new species has been observed apart from the rather confusing fossil record (which, over the several millions and millions of years of evolution, the number of fossils found is actually much lower than you would expect hugely!).


this is all utterly incorrect. the fossil record is only confusing absent of evolution. under the light of evolution, the fossil record makes a great deal of sense. moreover, most critters aren't lucky enough to become fossilized. special conditions are required for fossilization to occur. with respect to fossils, this guy has no idea wtf he is talking about.

[PogoPedant]

(note, all these mutations are DELETERIOUS to the organism over wild-type in NORMAL environments - sickle-cell anaemia = shorter life span, antibiotic resistant bacteria are less harmful than their couterparts often, and will not survive over non-resistant bacteria in the abscence of antibiotics)


This assumes that longevity and harmfulness are good things, which seems to miss the point of evolution altogether. Longevity is only good if the individual procreates throughout life, which is usually not true for humans.

For harmfulness to be a good thing, your debate-partner will have to believe that bacteria reproduce by causing harm, which I hope is clearly absurd. Antibiotics represent a change in the environment for certain bacteria, and resistant bacteria represent an adaptation to that new environment. That resistant bacteria would fare worse that non-resistant bacteria in an environment without antibiotics, again, misses the point.

[bluecollarscientist]

When it gets to the nuts and bolts of genetic mutations I'm a bit out of my depth so I wondered if anyone could respond to the points made in this extract of a post made on a forum I post on.

First, give up any idea that you will change this person's mind about evolution. They're already closed off to reality; you'll never convince them.

Realize that the only people in your debate that matter are the onlookers, who might be seduced by this whacko's points. You can win their hearts and minds, and doing so is extremely important.

The best strategy is to respond to his first point only. His posting is so long, most people aren't going to read beyond the first part of it.

His first point is that he agrees that random mutation and nonrandom selection (which he calls "random selection") can result in a new gene and a (small) change in an organism.

Your response should simplify the issues as much as practical and show that he actually agrees with you. One way to do this is to argue thus:

What happens when the next gene mutates? And then the next gene after that? And then the next one after that? After enough mutations and selections like this, eventually the entire mutated genome will be different from the original organism's genome. There is no "micro" or "macro" evolution, there is only genetic change. And 100% genome change is not even needed for speciation. No organism on Earth has a genome 100% different from any other organism's yet, and chimp genomes are only about 4-6% different from human genomes. With only a few percent difference being enough for a dramatic, obvious difference in species, clearly a bunch of small changes, one gene at a time, is enough to add up to speciation. Too bad you don't understand that lots of pennies add up to an Andrew Jackson.

(Use country-appropriate currency denominations.)

Keep it short. Keep it simple. Don't say anything factually wrong, but concern yourself more with making him look stupid than with being "right." Being right will get you nowhere in a debate. Being simple, understood, and obviously smarter and less stuffy than the microbiologist will let you win.

[Reality Check]

There is in fact an example of single gene mutation ("micro-evolution") that results in a new species ("macro-evolution"). Some snail species have individuals that can only mate with snails with shells of the same chirality (left or right handiness). The chirality is determined by 1 gene.

[whiteyonthemoon]

There is in fact an example of single gene mutation ("micro-evolution") that results in a new species ("macro-evolution"). Some snail species have individuals that can only mate with snails with shells of the same chirality (left or right handiness). The chirality is determined by 1 gene.

Interesting. Who did the first snail with this mutation mate with? Was it a parthenogenic species?

[fishbob]

Now show me where arisal of new species has been observed apart from the rather confusing fossil record (which, over the several millions and millions of years of evolution, the number of fossils found is actually much lower than you would expect hugely!). Show me the ARISAL OF NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. The ONLY way you can show me this is either by frame-shift mutations/crossing over of chromosomal DNA or viral integration of viral DNA into another genome. BOTH scenarios RELY on existing DNA.


The not at all confusing fossil record clearly represents traces of life that occurred over billions of years - some quite bizarre critters, some vastly different from anything around today.
We know that genetics provides the construction blueprints for the bodies that left the fossil remains. We know that the fossils differ across time. We see indications that fossils as well as modern organisms come from a common ancestor. Show me how this could be the case without the 'arisal' of new genetic information.

[Reality Check]

Interesting. Who did the first snail with this mutation mate with? Was it a parthenogenic species?
The snails are hermaphroditic.

[kjkent1]

Now show me where arisal of new species has been observed apart from the rather confusing fossil record (which, over the several millions and millions of years of evolution, the number of fossils found is actually much lower than you would expect hugely!). Show me the ARISAL OF NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. The ONLY way you can show me this is either by frame-shift mutations/crossing over of chromosomal DNA or viral integration of viral DNA into another genome. BOTH scenarios RELY on existing DNA."Arisal" is not a word.

Once you recognize this rather immature and amateur use of standard English (the proper phrase being: "Show me the "arising" of...," and even that phrase is strained grammar) you should recognize that the OP is a child or a troll, and that his/her comments are intentionally inflammatory.

In short, the OP's arguments assume facts not in evidence, misstate the actual scientific evidence, and are not worthy of anything more than a small yawn.

And, so here it is: "small yawn."

[dogjones]

One thing that can't be emphasized enough, from a debating standpoint, is that evolution is not incompatible with religion or with Christianity. It is only incompatible with fundamentalism. From a scientific standpoint, it's impossible to say that God wasn't sneaking around with the molecules and making things happen in his own strange and mysterious ways. We just don't have to worry about that as scientists, because it appears that those strange and mysterious ways are totally compatible with ordinary ways that don't involve God at all. The reason this is important is because it gets away from the false dichotomy of God vs. evolution. There is no such dilemma, but you have to convince the Christians et. al. of that before you can even get them to consider the possibility of evolution.

I dunno about this. Evolution may be compatible with theism, but not, in my view, Christianity. The crux of Christianity is that we were saved from original sin by Jesus. If evolution is correct, just what precisely are we supposed to have been saved from?

[brookus]

If evolution is correct, just what precisely are we supposed to have been saved from?The hermaphroditic snails obviously.

[whiteyonthemoon]

The snails are hermaphroditic.

So they still need a partner, right?

[godless dave]

I dunno about this. Evolution may be compatible with theism, but not, in my view, Christianity. The crux of Christianity is that we were saved from original sin by Jesus. If evolution is correct, just what precisely are we supposed to have been saved from?

Still original sin - just not by a literal Adam and Eve who were created from dust and a rib, respectively, in a literal garden of Eden.

Much as I despise Christianity, the literalist American version is not the only version, just the stupidest.

[Reality Check]

So they still need a partner, right?
The snails are hermaphroditic in certain conditions but reproduce sexually most other times. But this is beside the point.
Creationists/IDists try to split evolution up into "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" so that they can claim that 1 scientific theory (evolution) cannot cover both areas. Some even state that micro-evolution exists but macro-evolution does not. This terminology has even escaped into academia.
But evolution obviously covers both areas since new species evolve through the accumulation of small changes. There may be a lot of changes or a few changes. The snails are an example of a small change (in 1 gene!) resulting in a new species.

[whiteyonthemoon]

The snails are hermaphroditic in certain conditions but reproduce sexually most other times.

Going off topic, but I think this should be cleared up. Most hermaphrodidic animals reproduce sexually, with a partner. Often they have protections against self fertilization.

Back on topic, the idea that this snail proves that a change in one gene can give rise to a new species is not true.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030330&ct=1

It's too bad, I would like to have used this example myself.

[Olowkow]

I dunno about this. Evolution may be compatible with theism, but not, in my view, Christianity. The crux of Christianity is that we were saved from original sin by Jesus. If evolution is correct, just what precisely are we supposed to have been saved from?

Good question! I have never heard anyone explain what original sin was all about to my satisfaction. I think it is that inner feeling that everyone has that he is somehow just "not good enough". Women feel they are not good mothers, or not pretty enough, men worry they are not manly enough, not rich enough, too lustful and on and on.

Maybe they meant the propensity to commit wrong (sin)?

Why would a god punish all descendants for ever because a couple of folks pissed him off. Parents would never punish a child for the rest of his life for doing wrong as a kid. More like the Hatfields and the McCoys, seems to me.

I think a better religion would be one that said everyone has an equal chance from birth to be a good guy, no matter what he believes in.

What in fact is there to be saved from as a newborn baby? These ideas are just notions that have been pumped into the minds of generations of people looking for a way out of their guilt, in my opinion. We need a scapegoat we can dump all our misdeeds onto. History is full of such stories. Create the guilt, so religion can cure it.

Does anyone really want someone else to die for his sins? Something to ponder, in a deep sense. Is it even fair for someone to do such a thing? I wonder how I would feel if someone told me he was going to commit suicide to try to wipe away or set right my failings.

Evolution has no more to do with supernatural beliefs than does the "theory" of supply and demand, or historical linguistics as a challenge to the Tower of Babel does. Ya gotta wake up and smell the roses, people.

[Reality Check]

Back on topic, the idea that this snail proves that a change in one gene can give rise to a new species is not true.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030330&ct=1

It's too bad, I would like to have used this example myself.

My comment was based on the "Single-gene speciation by left–right reversal (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/abs/425679a.html)" paper in Nature in 2003. But I see your paper is later (2005) and points out what I missed in the previous paper :o - the mutation is in the genes of the mother snail and determines the chirality of her offspring. This means that there is no true reproductive isolation which is a key definition of a new species.

[Meadmaker]

I dunno about this. Evolution may be compatible with theism, but not, in my view, Christianity. The crux of Christianity is that we were saved from original sin by Jesus. If evolution is correct, just what precisely are we supposed to have been saved from?

Most Christians believe in evolution, and original sin isn't the sort of thing that gets expressed in DNA.

[Meadmaker]

First, give up any idea that you will change this person's mind about evolution. They're already closed off to reality; you'll never convince them.

Realize that the only people in your debate that matter are the onlookers, who might be seduced by this whacko's points. You can win their hearts and minds, and doing so is extremely important.

The best strategy is to respond to his first point only. His posting is so long, most people aren't going to read beyond the first part of it.

His first point is that he agrees that random mutation and nonrandom selection (which he calls "random selection") can result in a new gene and a (small) change in an organism.

Your response should simplify the issues as much as practical and show that he actually agrees with you. One way to do this is to argue thus:

What happens when the next gene mutates? And then the next gene after that? And then the next one after that? After enough mutations and selections like this, eventually the entire mutated genome will be different from the original organism's genome. There is no "micro" or "macro" evolution, there is only genetic change. And 100% genome change is not even needed for speciation. No organism on Earth has a genome 100% different from any other organism's yet, and chimp genomes are only about 4-6% different from human genomes. With only a few percent difference being enough for a dramatic, obvious difference in species, clearly a bunch of small changes, one gene at a time, is enough to add up to speciation. Too bad you don't understand that lots of pennies add up to an Andrew Jackson.

(Use country-appropriate currency denominations.)

Keep it short. Keep it simple. Don't say anything factually wrong, but concern yourself more with making him look stupid than with being "right." Being right will get you nowhere in a debate. Being simple, understood, and obviously smarter and less stuffy than the microbiologist will let you win.

Very good advice.

It isn't the only way to go about things, but I think all effective ways would be slight variations of the above strategy. One slight modification, or maybe a clarification, has to do with "making him look stupid." You should never, ever, say, "You are stupid." The onlookers will decide you are a jerk, and you'll lose the debate. You have to position him in such a way that they decide that he, or at least his positions, are stupid.

[Dr Adequate]

I am a scientist, I understand evolution very well. Having read the rest of his tirade, I conclude that this is a lie.

[PixyMisa]

Having read the rest of his tirade, I conclude that this is a lie.
Yep.

If this is supposed to be a parody of creationist arguments, then it doesn't go quite far enough. If it's serious, then it's the product of some serious ignorance.

The author of the screed smushes together the information argument, the micro/macro-evolution argument, the all-mutations-are-harmful argument and the randomness argument - all of them false - into an incoherent jumble, and then sprinkles his personal selection of lies, fallacies, and non-sequiturs on the top.

He not only doesn't understand evolution, he doesn't understand his own argument.

[zeusbheld]

excellent post, not much to add, but...
...
The best strategy is to respond to his first point only. His posting is so long, most people aren't going to read beyond the first part of it.
agree with the caveat that in a verbal debate it might make sense to go with his last point if he's long-winded. it'll still be fresh in people's minds, even if they were only half paying attention.


Keep it short. Keep it simple. Don't say anything factually wrong, but concern yourself more with making him look stupid than with being "right." Being right will get you nowhere in a debate. Being simple, understood, and obviously smarter and less stuffy than the microbiologist will let you win.

in other words, play to the cheap seats. totally agree.

[zeusbheld]

Yep.

If this is supposed to be a parody of creationist arguments, then it doesn't go quite far enough. If it's serious, then it's the product of some serious ignorance.

The author of the screed smushes together the information argument, the micro/macro-evolution argument, the all-mutations-are-harmful argument and the randomness argument - all of them false - into an incoherent jumble, and then sprinkles his personal selection of lies, fallacies, and non-sequiturs on the top.

He not only doesn't understand evolution, he doesn't understand his own argument.

i've definitely seen such things out in the world. they tend to play well to the cheap seats, and picking it apart point by point can bore the people in the cheap seats. however, i've found it effective sometimes to first pick it apart point by point, then let him contradict himself (or put his foot in his mouth some other way, which is easy to do when you're talking nothing but noise) then hammer him with his own words.

it fulfills the criterion of "making him look stupid" without resorting to calling him stupid (and losing by virtue of looking like a jerk). it can also make him look pretty dishonest if he takes the bait and gives you a nice pull quote. it's purely for show, but it can be effective.

[JWideman]

I think of important note that this self-professed scientist doesn't know what he's talking about, doesn't talk like a scientist, and doesn't understand the difference between theory and dogma.

[jimbob]

The language certainly dosen't sound like a scientist:

Now scientists say look this shows evolution does occur, and can be done in the lab



Dr A, I believe you are a mathematician, and I am chosing you for that reason only...

Would you ever write, "Now mathematicians say look this...",

Or would you be more likely to write: "Theory states that... " maybe, or "followers of theory x claim that this shows"?

The poster writes like an outsider, not someone who considers himself a scientist.

ETA: I'd even grant him "evilutionists say"

[Skeptic Ginger]

This moved goal post position of the people desperately trying to fit science to the Bible is the same nonsense of micro but not macro evolution. Because transitional phases are sometimes more fleeting in species, the fossil record at first looked more like punctuated equilibrium than a smooth gradual change from species to species. Now that we have such an extensive fossil record, it's clear all those gaps are disappearing. We also have recorded times when great diversification of species followed some major ecological change that either allowed species to move into new unoccupied territory such as the population of the land masses, or allowed species to repopulate after a mass extinction. I just got done posting something about bird evolution and EvoWiki noted The Neornithine 'Big Bang' (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_Neornithine_'Big_Bang') of bird evolution after the KT Boundary event.

But I digress. The claim there is no evidence of evolution of new genes then became the next moved goalpost after macro evolution became harder to pretend there was no evidence for. EvoWiki has this page on Evolution of new information. (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information)There are many ways in which information is added to the genome. It is important to realize that the total size of any organism's genome is not fixed - it can grow or shrink with mutation. Bases can be inserted or deleted, genes can be added by retroviruses, whole sections of the genome can be duplicated or deleted and even an entire chromosome or genome can be doubled or halved....

Note on 'complex and specified' information

When confronted with explanations of how a mutation may increase 'raw' (Shannon) information content, creationists will change their goalposts and begin to talk about a new form of information - complex, specified information (also known as 'biological information') [1]. It is true that mutations do only create unspecified information, however it is a key point that selection is able to specify the information created by mutation (by selecting only those few mutations that happened to specify something useful - i.e. causing a decrease in the unspecified information). After many repeats of this process, the specificity will be very complex. After all, the adjective 'complex', as used by most creationists, simply means 'to a great degree', and 'complex information' means only 'lots of information'. Therefore, to argue that evolution is impossible because mutations cannot create both information and specificity (thus ignoring selection) is akin to arguing that aircraft cannot fly because the engine doesn't provide both the required thrust and lift (thus ignoring the wings).

In fact, many creationists argue that selection decreases information. This is probably true but irrelevant, as selection is increasing the specificity of the information that is already present, rather than creating it anew. To use the above example again, one could argue that wings increase air resistance (therefore opposing the thrust force), but this ignores the fact that wings are the part of the plane that provides the lift, not the thrust. Mutations provide the raw (unspecified) information, and selection acts to specify it. Therefore in any discussion of complex or specified information, both must be considered.

Of course the best evidence is actual evidence and from the same EvoWiki page they include 30 referenced examples as well as a couple full sources for evolution of genes de novo.Documented Examples for Reference

In addition, quite apart from the fact that this claim is invalid in and of itself, this claim is refuted by almost innumerable studies documenting the evolutionary origin of novel genes [see link for list and links]. AndEvolution of novel genes: article references

Many article references are available on this ISCID thread

If you come across an article documenting how a new gene arose, put it here! Such lists can be very useful when the creationists start making infocreationism claims.

* Dean, Anthony (1998). The Molecular Anatomy of an Ancient Adaptive Event. American Scientist, 86(1), p. 26.
Not long ago after the first living organisms appeared on earth about 3.5 billion years ago, they started undergoing mutations and adaptations. One of the very earliest of these created two enzymes, each with distinct but related functions, where only one previously existed. Using a combination of the modern techniques of structural biochemistry and protein engineering, combined with molecular phylogeny, the author recreates the story of this very ancient event.
The article is about the origin of two ancient proteins from a common ancestor (enzymes that handle NAD or NADH) and is quite detailed but also written for the nonexpert. I believe Ken Miller has used the technical paper it was based on as an example. It is now freely online at American Scientist.

* Ranz JM, Ponce AR, Hartl DL, Nurminsky D., 2003. Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme. Genetica. Jul;118(2-3):233-44.
Sdic is a new gene that evolved recently in the lineage of Drosophila melanogaster. It was formed from a duplication and fusion of the gene AnnX, which encodes annexin X, and Cdic, which encodes the intermediate polypeptide chain of the cytoplasmic dynein. The fusion joins AnnX exon 4 with Cdic intron 3, which brings together three putative promoter elements for testes-specific expression of Sdic: the distal conserved element (DCE) and testes-specific element (TSE) are derived from AnnX, and the proximal conserved element (PCE) from Cdic intron 3. Sdic transcription initiates within the PCE, and translation is initiated within the sequence derived from Cdic intron 3, continuing through a 10 base pair insertion that creates a new splice donor site that enables the new coding sequence derived from intron 3 to be joined with the coding sequence of Cdic exon 4. A novel protein is created lacking 100 residues at the amino end that contain sequence motifs essential for the function of cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chains. Instead, the amino end is a hydrophobic region of 16 residues that resembles the amino end of axonemal dynein intermediate chains from other organisms. The downstream portion of Sdic features large deletions eliminating Cdic exons v2 and v3, as well as multiple frameshift deletions or insertions. The new protein becomes incorporated into the tail of the mature sperm and may function as an axonemal dynein intermediate chain. The new Sdic gene is present in about 10 tandem repeats between the wildtype Cdic and AnnX genes located near the base of the X chromosome. The implications of these findings are discussed relative to the origin of new gene functions and the process of speciation.

* A double issue of Genetica (abstract of the preface) on the evolution of novel genes (July 2003).

* Press release (2004). "Weizmann Insitute scientists show how proteins beat the evolutionary stakes." -- discusses protein promiscuity in function


* Kuper, J., Doenges, C. & Wilmanns, M. (2005). "Two-fold repeated (beta alpha)4 half-barrels may provide a molecular tool for dual substrate specificity." EMBO reports, 6(2), 134–139. DOI

[dogjones]

Most Christians believe in evolution, and original sin isn't the sort of thing that gets expressed in DNA.

Sure, but it's a problem of degrees. At what evolutionary point did we suddenly require saving? Are there cro-magnons in heaven?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Most Christians believe in evolution, and original sin isn't the sort of thing that gets expressed in DNA.I would like to see the poll or other data you draw the conclusion "most" from.

[jimbob]

Most in Europe almost certainly, especially if you count the many "secular Christians" ('Oh I'm not religious, I'm CofE'); I don't know about the US, and would be surprised about South America, let alone Africa...

[Red McWilliams]

I would like to see the poll or other data you draw the conclusion "most" from.

I don't know if it's "most" either, but google "evolution clergy letter" and you'll find a list of over 10,000 clergy (not laypeople) who understand evolution to be true. It's a fun list to whip out when dealing with young-earthers.

I'm also curious how that idea meshes with the story of Eden. My guess is that there's a lot of "well you have to understand the symbolism" going on.