DNA, IC, natural selection and debating a Creationist

[MarcusF]

ok, firstly I'd like to start off by saying that I'm not that well informed on biology in general and although I understand debating creationists is pointless and stupid, I often find myself in such situations. I have a basic grasp on the very basics of evolution but that's about it.

I was recently debating on youtube (yes I know...lol) and the person I was 'debating' stuck me on ignore for calling them a liar as I was apparently not answering their questions on purpose. So now I'm using another account I have with the knowledge of what will come. With that in mind I thought I ask on here for some advice in regard to certain points the person is/will be making because I don't, as yet, have the knowledge to refute them, and I can't find the right info on the internet in terms a layman can understand.

1) There is no evidence natural selection can lead to evolution.
2) Natural selection and mutations cannot create DNA, (new or otherwise) meaning new organs cannot be created, fins cant turn into feet and apes cant turn into men (LOL)
3) No evidence for organisms 'climbing' up Darwin's Tree of Life

Those are basically the points the person is making. Sounds like a load of crap to me but as yet I don't have the skills/knowledge to show why, so I thought I'd ask for some assistance.

I always thought natural selection was evolution in some respects, rather than leading to it. The environment kind of deciding what mutations were beneficial and which were not.

The creation of DNA has got me as I know pretty much nothing about it. I understood mutation created changes in the current DNA, which was what caused speciation etc, but I could be way off.

And the tree of life thing has me confused. The comment is referring to Dawin's finches at the moment, with them saying, "there is no fossil evidence or any other evidence showing 'pre' finches or finches climbing up the tree of life."

[Minimalist]

Instruct him to read Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" and that he should then get back to you when ( or if) he becomes less of an idiot.

[Anymouse]

"Creationism" makes the assumption that all theories are equal in worth and value, and therefore worthy of debate as an equal to other theories, such as organic evolution.

However, all theories are not equal in worth and value. Hardly anyone to-day debates the merits of spontaneous generation, and that's a theory, too. Or the Earth's position at the centre of the solar system. Or the indivisibility of an atom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation (this article includes a long discussion of how Christianity adopted spontaneous generation as "proof" of Genesis by scientists.)

Creationism (or its rebranding, Intelligent Design), is not worthy of debate as an equal to evolution, any more than spontaneous generation. If the IC folk can come up with some real evidence to support their hypothesis, then it might be worthy of debate.

[MarcusF]

Instruct him to read Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" and that he should then get back to you when ( or if) he becomes less of an idiot.

I do like the idea of that. Could do with reading a copy of that myself. But I'd really like to beat this person at their own game, and I'd like to be able to refute those points

[Anymouse]

1) There is no evidence natural selection can lead to evolution.
2) Natural selection and mutations cannot create DNA, (new or otherwise) meaning new organs cannot be created, fins cant turn into feet and apes cant turn into men (LOL)
3) No evidence for organisms 'climbing' up Darwin's Tree of Life

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.

There is no debate. The creationist starts with "my theory is equal [or superior] to yours; don't confuse me with facts." Therefore there is no debate.

I have a humourous flow chart that shows how to debate a creationist on my hard drive, but I don't know how to insert it here. Essentially, it is a set of rules for logic and rhetoric, and states there is no debate unless the IC promoter agrees to use them (no ad hominems, no argumentum ad hitlerium, must change position if shown to be invalid or false, cannot reference already disproved positions as evidence, &c). Of course, an IC proponent would never agree to use the rules of a true debate, so in reality there is no debate.

Call the IC'ers position as it is. Religious belief. Belief is not worthy of debate, as religion is not based on facts. You might also point out the Doubting Thomas story to your IC'er: blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. If you could -prove- religion, in that instant it ceases to be religion and becomes science.

[MarcusF]

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

[Minimalist]

Instruct him to read Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" and that he should then get back to you when ( or if) he becomes less of an idiot.

I do like the idea of that. Could do with reading a copy of that myself. But I'd really like to beat this person at their own game, and I'd like to be able to refute those points

That's fine but would you try to discuss sonar with your dog? When he writes shit like:

"1) There is no evidence natural selection can lead to evolution."

It is clear that he does not understand the meaning of either term.

[MarcusF]

It is clear that he does not understand the meaning of either term.

I'm not 100% on it either, that's why I'm asking

I always thought it was evolution by natural selection. But I'm probably wrong...lol

[Minimalist]

If you want to read the book PM me an email address and I'll send you an electronic version I have kicking around.

[Anymouse]

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

I am assuming you stated #1. And they refuse to accept it, or refute your assertion with contrary evidence. Ergo, it is not a debate.

Evolution proceeds through natural selection. If he refuses to accept the definitions of the terms, it is also not a debate.

His assertion of DNA simply "appearing" is a claim which runs counter to everything we know of biology, chemistry, geology, palentology, &c. Therefore he is making the extraordinary claim. The onus of its proof is on him, not on you to disprove it (other than the usual rules of logic and rhetoric).

Perhaps that is where scientific debate goes wrong. Anyone with a crackpot idea claims their pet theory is on an equal level with established scientific knowledge, without showing their proof is so. Demand their evidence. Then, after they give it to you, (if there is any), if you are unsure about what they present, say so, that you may check it out. There is no shame in saying "Sounds interesting, but let me research that."

Even if he does not support IC or religion in general, the rules of debate still apply.