RE: DNA, IC, natural selection and debating a Creationist
June 7, 2011 at 8:48 pm
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2011 at 8:50 pm by MarcusF.)
(June 7, 2011 at 8:22 pm)Anymouse Wrote: 1) Yes there is. There might be no evidence that a creationist would accept, however. (Don't confuse me with the facts lalalalalala)
2) Why not? Everything from misdivided chromosomes to radiation can alter DNA. (And thorium, a radioactive element, is present in all earth. It can be found everywhere. Ever hear the "background radiation" on a Geiger counter? Tick, tick, tick, DNA being altered.)
3) Yes there is. See 1) above.
1) But what is that evidence? I'm not too fussed whether they accept it or not. I'd just like to be able to counter it.
2) I understand mutations etc change DNA, which I guess you could say was then 'new'. But I think this joker is saying new in the context of totally new and different DNA added. As if a strand or piece of DNA has just been added in a puff of magic.
3) I just need to know what the evidence is for the 'climb' as they put it. Would all present day organisms be at the tips of the trees branches? Therefore there won't be any descendants of Darwin's finches yet, or have I got this all backwards?
Just to add this person isn't mentioning religion or creation. They're just trying to say that evolution is false and untrue because of the reasons I have stated.
The easiest thing is to ignore/ridicule them, but I rarely do things the easy way
